alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 525 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 525

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to 
                      welfare reform legislation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 18, 1994

 Mr. Knollenberg (for himself, Mr. Solomon, Mr. McCollum, Mr. Kim, Mr. 
  Hoekstra, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Ms. Molinari, Mr. Walker, Mrs. 
 Meyers of Kansas, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Upton, Mr. 
   Ballenger, Mr. Torkildsen, Mr. Everett, Mr. Stump, Mr. Klug, Mr. 
  Hobson, Mr. Fields of Texas, Mr. Dornan, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Canady, Mr. 
 Kingston, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Horn, Mr. Wolf, Mr. 
Royce, Mr. Smith of Texas, and Mr. Inglis of South Carolina) submitted 
 the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 
                               and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to 
                      welfare reform legislation.

Whereas, since 1965, welfare spending at the Federal, State, and local levels 
        has cost United States taxpayers $5,000,000,000,000;
Whereas, despite rapid increases in welfare spending since the inception of the 
        War on Poverty, the poverty rate in the United States has not been 
        reduced significantly;
Whereas 14.7 percent of United States residents were mired in poverty in 1966, 
        versus 14.5 percent in 1992 (the last year for which figures are 
        available);
Whereas the Federal Government spends on welfare programs more than twice the 
        amount required to lift every person on welfare from poverty; and
Whereas welfare rolls have increased sharply since the enactment of the Family 
        Support Act of 1988, and less than 1 percent of recipients of aid to 
        families with dependent children work, and the costs of implementing 
        such Act have exceeded estimates by $10,000,000,000: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
any welfare reform legislation that passes the House of 
Representatives--
            (1) should result in net savings to the United States 
        taxpayer within 5 years;
            (2) should limit increases in aggregate spending for 
        welfare programs to the rate of inflation;
            (3) should not require any new taxes;
            (4) should not increase the Federal deficit by more than 
        the amount by which the Federal deficit would increase in the 
        absence of the legislation; and
            (5) should not require State or local governments to bear 
        any administrative costs that would not be borne by such 
        governments in the absence of the legislation.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 341-2.

Division Two.

October 19, 1971.]

#### Melvin P. Espy, *Appellant,*v. Astor Calfee, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clallam County, No. 18755, Joseph H. Johnston, J., entered May 4, 1970. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed January

26 , 2012.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 00044

- CV

IN RE EFREM D. SEWEL L AND MILO SHEPARD , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 151st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 37278



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On January 18, 2012 , relator s Ef rem D. Sewell and Milo Shepard filed a petition
for writ of mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask this c ourt to compel the Honorable Mike Engelhart, presiding judge of the 151st District Court of Harris C ounty to dissolve a temporary injunction entered Novembe r 2, 2011

. This original proceeding arises from a law suit between Hardriders, Inc., a motorcycle club, and two of its members, Efrem Sewell and Milo Shepard. Hardriders, Inc. filed suit against relators seeking an injunction to prevent relators from forming a separate motorcycle club using the Hardriders name. Hardriders, Inc. obtained a temporary injunction ordering relators to “immediately cease and desist from pursuing2

the completion and approval of the trademark application[.]” Relators we re further ordered to “immediately turnover all account passwords, access codes, and all other information necessary for the use, control, and access to the website domain
www.hardridersmc.com , and cease and desist from disabling, altering, cancelling, or in

any way encumbering Plaintiff Hardriders, Inc.’s use, control, access, or further enjoyment to the website.” Trial is set for June 18, 2012.
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, relator s must show that the trial court clear ly abused its discretion and t he y ha ve no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Team Rocket, L.P ., 256 S.W.3d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus may not be used as a form of interlocutory appeal. N.H. Helicopters, Inc. v.
Brown , 841 S.W.2d 424, 425 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding). Section 51.014(a)(4) specifically provides for an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4). An interlocutory appeal provides an ade quate remedy. See In re Henry , 274 S.W.3d 185, 189 n. 2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding).
Because relators can appeal the temporary injunction, they have an adequate remedy by appeal, and have not established their entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and also deny relator’s related motion for temporary relief

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Bo yce.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OF FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS INDUSTRIES, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES AS OF MARCH 31, 1997, AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME 
AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN 
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,020
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,811
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,540
<INVENTORY>                                      7,807
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,230
<PP&E>                                         104,783
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 135,242
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,164
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,921
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   135,242
<SALES>                                          4,860
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,686
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   69,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   978
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   576
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,970
<INCOME-TAX>                                       599
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,371
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,371
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
I - 1

Appendix I 

Survey of Ferry Vessel Owner/Operators 

During the first two weeks of November 2007, Air Resources Board (Board or ARB) staff 

conducted a phone survey of ferry vessel owner/operators to estimate the engine model 

year distribution of California ferries. The survey was conducted in response to the 

Board’s instruction to evaluate the possibility of accelerating the replacement of later 

model year (1996-1999) Tier 0 ferry diesel engines from the 2015-2016 time frame to 

2014. The direction applied only to ferries with home ports outside the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as the originally proposed schedule provided for 

replacement of all Tier 0 engines on SCAQMD ferries prior to 2014. The purpose of the 

survey was to estimate the number of ferry engines that would be impacted by the change 

proposed by the Board. 

Staff contacted nine California ferry operators and obtained information on a total of 

35 ferries, as shown in Table I-1 below. Staff estimates that these represent 

approximately half of the total state-wide ferry fleet. Of these 35 ferries, 4 ferries outside 

the SCAQMD have propulsion engines in the 1996-1999 model year range. Based on this 

survey, less than 10 ferries statewide would be impacted by this schedule acceleration. 

Table I-1 Survey Results: Number of Ferry Vessels by Area and 

Propulsion Engine Model Year 

Engine 

Model Year 

Home Port in 

SCAQMD 

Home Port 

Outside 

SCAQMD 

Total 

Pre-1996 

(Tier 0) 5 2 7 

1996-1999 

(Tier 0) 1 4 5 

2000 

(Tier 1) 4 4 

Post-2000 

(Tier 1) 4 10 14 

2007+ 

(Tier 2) 1 4 5 

Total 11 24 35
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The data reported in this exhibit are based on unaudited  statements but include
all adjustments which the company considers necessary for a fair presentation of
results for this period.

</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000041499
<NAME> THE GILLETTE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             84,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,836,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       55,000
<INVENTORY>                                     1,391,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                5,075,000
<PP&E>                                          5,903,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,399,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,069,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,279,000
<BONDS>                                         3,031,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                        1,365,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      1,010,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,069,000
<SALES>                                         6,477,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                6,477,000
<CGS>                                           2,349,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,349,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,612,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                166,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,357,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                      451,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               906,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (429,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      477,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .45


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 470 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 470

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         June 29, 1994.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4454) making 
appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1995, and for other purposes. All points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 99.1
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT



The Board of Directors 
Central Illinois Financial Co., Inc.:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Central
Illinois Financial Co., Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995, and
the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders 
equity, and cash flows for the year then ended.  These consolidated
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company s management. 
Our re-sponsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated
financial statements based on our audit.  

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free
of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements.  An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating
the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that
our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Central
Illinois Financial Co., Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995, and
the results of their operations and their cash flows for the year then
ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We previously audited and reported on the consolidated statements of
income, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows of BankIllinois
Financial Co. and subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 1994 prior to
restatement for the 1995 pooling of interests.  The contribution of
BankIllinois Financial Co. and subsidiary to total stockholders' equity,
revenue and net income represented 55%, 44% and 68% of the respective
restated totals for the year ended December 31, 1994.  Separate
consolidated financial statements of the other companies included in the
December 31, 1994 restated consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity, and cash flows of the years ended December 31, 1994
were audited and reported on separately by other auditors.  We also audited
the combination of the accompanying consolidated statements of income,
changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year ended December
31, 1994 after restatement for the 1995 pooling of interests; in our
opinion, such consolidated statements have been properly combined on the
basis described in note 1 of the notes to the consolidated financial
statements.

By:     /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



Saint Louis, Missouri
March 1, 1996
256 La. 873

#### EMPLOYERS MUTUAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN & Miley Timber Co., Inc. v. Ernest HARRY.

No. 50842.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: Ernest Harry applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Washington. 238 So.2d 209.

Writ refused. In view of R.S. 23:1121, the ruling complained of is correct.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
263 La. 103

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Ben Frank ROBERTSON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52857.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 19, 1972.

In re: Ben Frank Robertson applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Application denied. The trial Judge was correct in his ruling after the evidentiary hearing.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 19, 2018

No. 04-18-00093-CR

Ryan RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR11801

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

 After this court granted two prior extension of time, appellant’s brief was due July 18, 

2018. On the due date, appellant filed his third motion for extension of time, asking for an 

additional thirty days in which to file his brief. After review, we GRANT appellant’s motion 

and ORDER appellant to file his brief in this court on or before August 17, 2018. Appellant is 

advised that no further extension of time to file the brief will be granted absent written 

proof of extraordinary circumstances.

 We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of July, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### Sara P. HARRISON, Appellant, v. James L. HARRISON, Appellee.

Nos. 72-301, 72-302.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2021382EN.01002303.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/23

---

Order of the President of the Court of 21 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — AX v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

(Case C-9/21) (1)

(2021/C 382/31)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 88, 15.03.2021.

---
*After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R.

34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This

order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be

cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 27 2003

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RANDY DALE SMITH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

T.C. PETERSON, Warden; UNITED

STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Federal Correctional Institution at El

Reno, Oklahoma,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 02-6301

(D.C. No. 01-CV-1089-R)

(W.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before EBEL, HENRY and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.

Pro se Petitioner Randy Dale Smith is currently incarcerated at the Federal

Correctional Institution in El Reno, Oklahoma. He filed this petition for habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that he has been wrongly denied

credit on the federal sentence he is currently serving. 
- 2 -

Smith was incarcerated in an Oklahoma prison on state charges in 1996

when he was loaned to federal authorities, pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad

prosequendum, for prosecution on federal charges. Smith argues first that while

on loan for the federal charges (to which he ultimately pled guilty), he should

have received credit towards the federal sentence he ultimately received. Second,

he argues that because the federal sentence and state sentence arose out of the

same transaction, they should have been designated to run concurrently instead of

consecutively. Finally, he argues that because his federal sentence was not

calculated properly, he has been wrongly forced to serve that sentence on an

installment basis.

The district court referred Smith’s petition to a magistrate judge, who

recommended that the petition be denied. After reviewing the magistrate’s report

de novo, the district court adopted its recommendations and denied the petition. 

Our review of the record, the parties’ briefs and the magistrate’s thorough

treatment of Smith’s petition leads us to AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the

petition for habeas corpus for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate’s

report.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge