alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB10-CR.24 **Contact:**  Jennifer Smits
Public Information Office
(301) 763-3030 (phone)
(301) 763-3762 (fax)
(301) 457-1037 (TDD)PIO@census.gov
Joy Brandon
Dallas Regional Census Center
214-673-3960
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  FRIDAY, FEB. 12, 2010 Media Advisory — 2010 Census Road Tour Comes to San Antonio Traveling for a total of 1,547 days and more than 150,000 miles across the country, 13 road tour vehicles will provide the public with an educational, engaging and interactive experience that brings the 2010 Census to life. At each event across the country, attendees will have the opportunity to learn about the 2010 Census and understand the benefits a complete count can bring to communities everywhere; view a sample 2010 Census form and learn how the collected information is used; and contribute stories and photos to the Portrait of America project to explain why "I count!" and view messages from other road tour participants.
    
 For more information about the 2010 Census and the Road Tour, please visit 2010census.gov and follow us on Twitter (@2010Portrait), Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### STATE ex rel. McClinton ISAAC, Relator, v. Honorable Mark R. McGARRY, Jr., Circuit Judge, as Criminal Administrator of the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-613.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 26, 1971.

Prohibition denied.
NO. 07-07 -050 3-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU NE 23, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ DA VID M CG ARYa/k

/a D AVID SAN DE RS , Appel lan t
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 46 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF HA RDE MA N CO UNT Y; TH NO. 400 6; HON. DAN MIKE BIRD, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Bef ore QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appel lan t D av id Mc Gar y a /k /a D av id Sanders a ppeal s from hi s c onv ic ti on of poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed subst ance ( coc ain e)

. Hi s is sue on appeal inv olv es comments made dur ing the Stat e’s clos ing arg ument. T he f irst per tai ned to the prosec utor ’s al lus ion to a “three strikes and you’re out” rule. T hou gh objectio ns to th e c o m m e n t s we re tw ice
sus tai ned and the jur

y ins tr uct ed to dis re g ard them, appel lan t bel iev ed that he w as enti tl ed2

to a m istrial. The secon d com me nt i nvolv ed refe rence to pu nishm ent being assesse d in
acc ordance w it h c ommunit y des ires. W e aff ir m. Reg ardin g the “t hr ee s tr ik es” comment and the need for a mis tr ial , appell ant d id not
r e q u e s t o n e . Th u s , h e w a i v e d a n y c o mp l a i n t h e h a d a b o u t n o t r e cei v ing one. See Thom pson v. State, 12 S. W .3d 9 15, 9 20- 21 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 20 00, p et. re f’d) (h old ing thata de fendant mustr eq uesta mi str ial to pr eser v e hi s c omplai nt for

r ev iew ). As for the purpor

ted refer ence to communi ty desires w hen as ses si ng puni shment , no obj ect ion w as uttered. Thus, appel la n t a lso f ail ed to preser v e thi s c omplai nt. See Ar chi e v . St ate, 221 S. W .3d 695, 699 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2007) ( sta ti ng thatto pr eser v e er ro r regarding prosecuto rial argum ent , a def end ant m ust pu rsue his objection s to an a dverse ruling). Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le the i ss ue and aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Per C ur iam

Do not p ubl is h.
#### Betty Ann Booksh MEVERS v. Guy Francis MEVERS.

No. 5402.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

April 3, 1973.

Eugene J. Gomes, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

No appearance for appellant.

Before STOULIG, SCHOTT, and BAILES, JJ.

STOULIG, Judge.

This appeal arises from the divorce proceedings between Betty Ann Booksh *367Mevers and Guy Francis Mevers. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the appellant but specifically found Mrs. Mevers to be at fault and for this reason denied her alimony. From only that part of the judgment adjudicating fault has this suspensive appeal been taken.

It has come to the court’s attention, by way of a statement contained in appellee’s brief, that Mrs. Mevers has since remarried. Counsel for appellee states he has confirmed this fact through conversations with Mrs. Mevers’ former attorney and, in connection therewith, he submitted a certified copy of the petition for separation filed by her present husband against the former Mrs. Mevers on November 18, 1972, bearing Docket No. 147-983 of the Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Jefferson.

Since this document and other corroborative proof of remarriage were not introduced into evidence in the trial court nor stipulated in this court, this factor does not form part of the record of appeal and cannot be considered by us. Though lacking formal or stipulated proof of Mrs. Mevers’ present marital status, we can acknowledge that notice of her remarriage has been brought to our attention and if sustained by sufficient proof will terminate her right to alimony from the appellee under LSA-C.C. art. 160. Under these circumstances the question of Mrs. Mevers’ fault would no longer be a justiciable issue, determinative of the rights of either litigant, but would be rendered moot.

For this reason, rather than undertake a consideration of the merits of this appeal, which because of a change in circumstance would not be determinative of the rights of either party and would assume the import of a mere academic discussion, we feel that the interest of the parties will better be served by remanding the case to the trial court for the sole purpose of adducing evidence relative to the alleged second marriage of the appellant and her present marital status.

Costs of this appeal are to be borne by the appellant.

Remanded.
OF THE UNITED STATES: 1910. POPUI ULATION 90 | neat omer ed fe

NAwe OF mcoRPORATED Pace LX | Se <— | Wane. OF cary anion Bs
igre. .
b) SATIVITY. ome. | = i ‘OCCUPATION, meccarvex. | ermmer eon
pamar Mpg { te meee iain || beer IA PU [== Tal
oneal aaa ET Tt | |= pamigrronn eerie teers ber ecrerd peters PIPL
merges t/a TE RPE | ; eae Seeley) |P dua]
oF. ac . spelt] elelelul = ra Ee BES my | H ” = ie Cee Cee == =
Vit 4 Li a] : i it} Bs
: : : eae ee Om iS t :
bal aso ‘ Ba ia Ee cA 7 ats om kel : r bt kes
(gr 28 aap VG 27. LA face —}Laceaas ilefassn Cong} —
2
\ ——— Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau. > 3 Fi ‘
g - . . . . . . fel _L i
a Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. Ths
- - ‘
: ria +
—, zal Hi kg
PEG ONT) 7
iE 7 Via S i
——
—— 4: ‘gl rA HG BS
i
—— Om Se
| a ay SRC 7a zi
Shae ms i; : -
—— . CWP = 3]
vie BAe 7A tf
i 9 , y A JS RAR :
Kad
ee
: 4 21
—-, Bor / ma
ale
: AOA T
& FE? ‘D _
= PAM ZN 2 f
: —— Z
a Aas
od —— 7
= cia é
mz fi Se 4 a
18 —— j df Z oan
wk —— . | a id -
4 —— a z
i ‘ . * : * oa
RATES & REGULATION

The Company's last rate case was approved to become effective on September 1,
1996.  While there has been some moderate customer growth, increased wages,
investment in new and replacement gas plant and the effects of inflation
now necessitate the filing of a request for increased rates with the Public
Service Commission.  Because this request must meet additional requirements
with regards to the new deregulated environment, the Company will file a
major case requiring the use of legal assistance and outside consultants.
It is anticipated that the request will be filed prior to the end of January,
2000 with new rates to become effective January 1, 2001.

Over the last several years the Company has been involved in the process of
transitioning towards the deregulated environment where all customers,
including residential, have the ability to purchase natural gas from a
marketer of their choice and are not required to purchase from the Company.
As has been previously reported, the Company is neutral with respect to
profit margin in that no margin has ever been received from the sale of gas.
Rates are set by the Public Service Commission based on investment in plant
and the cost of operating the distribution system, functions which will not
change.

On November 3, 1998 the Public Service Commission issued a Policy Statement
that clearly stated the concern that the deregulated market would not succeed
if local distribution companies (LDC's) were allowed to continue in the
merchant function.  The Commission is, therefore, requiring that LDC's
submit plans indicating how they would transition to a fully deregulated
market in which they are no longer a participant in the activity of selling
gas.

Company personnel have been actively involved in the regulatory process
leading towards deregulation and have spent many hours in internal
discussion and planning.  Along with the request for increased rates the
Company will file its plan to exit the merchant function and unbundle rates
in accordance with the Commission directive.  In this regard, a consultant
familiar with all of the complexities associated with this transition has
been retained.  The plan will address all of the perceived implications of
this significant change in the traditional way of conducting business
including capacity contract expirations, provider of last resort
responsibility, customer motivation and internal operating procedures.  A
timetable to completely exit the merchant function will be established.

The transition to a more competitive environment in which utilities are not
active participants in the activity of selling gas is inevitable.  The
Company supports the efforts of the Public Service Commission to make this
transition as smooth and as soon as is practical and we are confidant in our
ability to adapt to this new environment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF GIGA INFORMATION GROUP, INC. FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                         <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS                3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1998          JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            6,713               11,071
<SECURITIES>                                          0                2,766
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7,091               10,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                        404                  436
<INVENTORY>                                           0                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 19,984               33,613
<PP&E>                                            5,125                7,218
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3,023                2,494
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   22,255               38,527
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            36,767               37,754
<BONDS>                                               0                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          12                    0
<COMMON>                                              3                   10
<OTHER-SE>                                      (15,217)                 763
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     22,255               38,527
<SALES>                                           9,112               12,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  9,112               12,890
<CGS>                                             5,231                7,472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    14,225               19,006
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     65                  172
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  572                 (177)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (5,620)              (6,111)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (4)                  10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (5,616)              (6,121)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0                    0
<CHANGES>                                             0                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (5,616)              (6,121)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.60)               (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (2.60)               (0.61)



</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 13

- 00809

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G.A. , a Child

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 1078

- CV

Honorable Linda Z. Jones, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 8, 2014

DISMISSED

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a). Costs of appeal are taxed against the parties who have

incurred them.

PER CURIAM
#### CHEMICALS, INC., Petitioner, v. Dewey DUKES, Respondent.

No. 44013.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 28, 1973.

Certiorari denied, 277 So.2d 298.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
|Highlights-12 Months Ended September 30 |   |            |        |            |       |          | 
|--------------------------------------- | - | ---------- | ------ | ---------- | ----- | -------- | 
|                                        |   |            |        |            |       |          | 
|                                        |   | 2000       |        | 1999       |       |          | 
|Operating Revenue                       | $ | 24,304,000 |        | 22,968,000 |       |          | 
|Net Income                              | $ | 471,500    |        | 437,900    |       |          | 
|Earnings Per Common Share               | $ | 1.02       |        | 0.95       |       |          | 
|Gas Deliveries( Mcf)                    |   | 8,047,000  |        | 8,017,000  |       |          | 
|Degree Days                             |   | 6,333      |        | 6,241      |       |          | 
|Total Customers                         |   | 14,246     |        | 13,993     |       |          | 
|Capital Expenditures                    | $ | 675,000    |        | 1,150,700  |       |          | 
|Property, Plant and Equipment           | $ | 26,427,800 |        | 25,608,300 |       |          | 
|                                        |   |            |        |            |       |          | 
|                                        |   |            |        |            |       |          | 
|                                        |   |            |        |            |       |          | 
|Common Stock Data-Market Price(OTC)     |   |            |        |           
|                                        |   |            |        |            |       |          | 
|                                        |   |            |        |            |       | Dividend
|Quarter Ended                           |   |            | High   | Low        | Paid 
|December 31, 1998                       | $ | 20         | 20     | 0.325     
|March 31, 1999                          |   |            | 21 1/2 | 20         | 0.325
|June 30, 1999                           |   |            | 21 1/2 | 21 1/2     | 0.325
|September 30, 1999                      |   | 21 1/2     | 21 1/2 | 0.325     
|December 31, 1999                       |   | 22 1/2     | 21 1/2 | 0.325     
|March 31, 2000                          |   |            | 25     | 20         | 0.325
|June 30, 2000                           |   |            | 21     | 19 1/2     | 0.325
|September 30, 2000                      |   | 21         | 18     | 0.325     
|                                        |   |            |        |            |       |          |
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Wayne F.  Irmiter,  Vice  President  and  Controller  of Salton  Sea  Funding
Corporation   (the  "Company"),   certify,   pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  that to the best of my
knowledge:

     (1) the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the  Company  for the  quarterly
         period ended  September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the
         requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

     (2) the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.


Date:  November 6, 2003



                              /s/ Wayne F. Irmiter
                          -----------------------------
                                Wayne F. Irmiter
                          Vice President and Controller
                           (chief accounting officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1607 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1607

   To provide conformity in Native small business opportunities and 
  promote job creation, manufacturing, and American economic recovery.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2013

Mr. Schatz (for himself and Ms. Hirono) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business 
                          and Entrepreneurship

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide conformity in Native small business opportunities and 
  promote job creation, manufacturing, and American economic recovery.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Native Small Business Conformity Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS CONFORMITY.

    (a) HUBZone Eligibility.--
            (1) In general.--Section 3(p)(3) of the Small Business Act 
        (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(3)) is amended--
                    (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as 
                subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively; and
                    (B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the 
                following:
                    ``(D) a small business concern that is owned and 
                controlled by an organization described in section 
                8(a)(15);''.
            (2) Technical and conforming amendment.--Section 
        3(p)(5)(A)(i)(I)(aa) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
        632(p)(5)(A)(i)(I)(aa)) is amended by striking ``subparagraph 
        (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of paragraph (3)'' and inserting 
        ``subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) or (F) of paragraph 
        (3)''.
    (b) 8(a) Program.--
            (1) In general.--Section 8(a)(6) of the Small Business Act 
        (15 U.S.C. 637(a)(6)) is amended by adding at the end the 
        following:
    ``(F) If an organization described in paragraph (15) establishes 
that it is economically disadvantaged under this paragraph in 
connection with an application for 1 small business concern owned or 
controlled by the organization, the organization shall not be required 
to reestablish that it is economically disadvantaged in order to have 
other businesses that it owns or controls certified for participation 
in the program under this subsection, unless specifically requested to 
do so by the Administration.''.
            (2) Applicability.--The amendment made by this subsection 
        shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and 
        apply to determinations of economic disadvantage made before, 
        on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The HERITAGE CORPORATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Herbert MAGNES, Appellee.

No. 73-30.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1973.

Leo Greenfield, North Miami, for appel-hint.

Burnett Roth, Miami Beach, for appel-lee,

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was the defendant in an action brought by the plaintiff appellee for recovery of money damages for defendant’s failure to return a cash deposit which the plaintiff had given to the defendant as a good faith deposit in connection with an agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant, a mortgage broker, for its services in procuring a mortgage loan commitment on property belonging to plaintiff.

The defendant denied that it was indebted to plaintiff and counterclaimed for a brokerage commission on the mortgage loan commitment which it alleged it obtained in accordance with the agreement between plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff in his reply to the counterclaim denied that he was indebted to defendant.

The issues were tried in a non-jury trial and the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover $6,500.00 from the defendant on his complaint and that the defendant was not entitled to recover on its counterclaim.

The trial judge found that there was not an agreement entered into by which the plaintiff could bind the defendant; that the undertaking was unilateral in nature; that the defendant did not complete its obligation under the latter agreement entered into between plaintiff and defendant; that the defendant sought to rewrite the agreement between the parties and that the plaintiff did not agree to be bound by the terms of the mortgage which defendant procured.

It is appellant’s contention that the trial court’s findings of fact were not supported by the evidence and that his conclusions-of *514law were contrary to the controlling principles of law.

We have considered the points on appeal in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed as no reversible error has been made to appear.

Affirmed.