alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 20568

REVEAL ENERGY SERVICES, INCORPORATED; STATOIL GULF SERVICES, L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees

v.

MATTHEW A. DAWSON; JIN Z. DAWSON; AXIOM GENESIS, INCORPORATED,

Defendants

- Appellants

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:17

- CV

- 459

Before Judges SMITH, BARKSDALE, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

Dr. Matthew A. Dawson, his wife Dr. Jin Z. Dawson, and Axiom Genesis,
Incorporated

, challenge the preliminary injunction provided by the district
court’s 21 August 2017 order

. Having reviewed the briefs and pertinent parts

of the record

, and heard oral argument, the preliminary injunction is

AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 13, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-20568 Document: 00514271923 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/13/2017
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Donald E. SMITH.

No. 54181.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 19, 1973.

In re: Donald E. Smith applying for writ of habeas corpus and remedial writ.

Writ denied. Insufficient showing to warrant the exercise of this Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J., concurs.
EXHIBIT 11.1

                       DONALDSON, LUFKIN & JENRETTE, INC.
              SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF
             COMMON SHARES AND COMMON SHARE EQUIVALENTS OUTSTANDING
                AND BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE FOR THE YEARS ENDED
                        DECEMBER 31, 1999, 1998 AND 1997

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Years Ended December 31,
                                                          1999         1998        1997
                                                        ---------    ---------   ---------
                                                       (in thousands, except per share data)
<S>                                                     <C>          <C>         <C>
DLJ Common Stock

Weighted Average Common Shares:
     Average Common Shares Outstanding                    125,275      119,111     110,278
     Average Restricted Stock Units Outstanding               158          149          40
                                                        ---------    ---------   ---------

Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding                125,433      119,260     110,318
                                                        =========    =========   =========

Earnings:
     Net Income                                         $ 600,700    $ 370,800   $ 408,250
     Less: Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement            21,180       21,310      12,144
           Earnings Applicable to Common Shares -
             DLJdirect                                       (903)          --          --
                                                        ---------    ---------   ---------

Earnings Applicable to Common Shares                    $ 580,423    $ 349,490   $ 396,106
                                                        =========    =========   =========

Basic Earnings Per Common Share                         $    4.63    $    2.93   $    3.59
                                                        =========    =========   =========

DLJdirect Common Stock

Weighted Average Common Shares:
     Average Common Shares Outstanding                     18,400
                                                        =========

Earnings:
     Net Income                                         $    (903)
                                                        ---------

Earnings Applicable to Common Shares                    $    (903)
                                                        ---------

Basic Earnings Per Common Share                         $   (0.05)
                                                        =========
</TABLE>
#### Daniel Lopez MORALES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-1018.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 18, 1969.

Daniel Lopez Morales, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

*16PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order of judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3770 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3770

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the United States courthouse located at 940 Front Street 
  in San Diego, California, and the Federal building attached to the 
     courthouse as the ``Edward J. Schwartz Courthouse and Federal 
                              Building''.





103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3770

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
 To designate the United States courthouse located at 940 Front Street 
  in San Diego, California, and the Federal building attached to the 
     courthouse as the ``Edward J. Schwartz Courthouse and Federal 
                              Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse located at 940 Front Street in San 
Diego, California, and the Federal building attached to the courthouse 
shall be known and designated as the ``Edward J. Schwartz Courthouse 
and Federal Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the courthouse and Federal building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Edward J. Schwartz Courthouse and Federal Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 13, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
EXHIBIT 32



In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Vanguard  Energy  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30, 2015 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Warren Dillard, the Principal
Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date: August 7, 2015                   By:/s/ Warren Dillard
                                          -----------------------
                                          Warren Dillard,
                                          Principal Executive and
                                          Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINING SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT NOVEMBER 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1997
(UNAUDITED) IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,489
<SECURITIES>                                    12,341
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,229
<ALLOWANCES>                                       550
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,029
<PP&E>                                          18,071
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,106
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,879
<BONDS>                                             42
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,174
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,106
<SALES>                                          9,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,528
<CGS>                                            1,566
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,621
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (79)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  81
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,825)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,925)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,925)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.52)
        



</TABLE>
Slip Op. 06-119 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

 

 

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., : 

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR : 

AMERICA, INC., : 

 : 

 Plaintiffs, : 

 : Before: Carman, Judge 

 v. : 

 : Court No. 01-00988 

UNITED STATES, : 

 : 

 Defendant, : 

 : 

 and : 

 : 

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., : 

 : 

 Defendant-Intervenor. : 

 : 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the decision of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. 

United States, 424 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005), reversing in part and remanding the 

judgment of the Court in Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. United States, 28 CIT __, 318 F. 

Supp. 2d 1314 (2004) (“Hynix III”). Based on the CAFC’s decision, this Court 

remanded this matter to the United States Department of Commerce (“Commerce”). 

Commerce was instructed to recalculate Hynix’s antidumping duty rate by expensing 

research and development costs. See Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. United States, No. 

01-00988 (Ct. Int’l Trade Feb. 16, 2006). As to all other issues, this Court’s opinion in 

Hynix III controls. 

 On March 31, 2006, Commerce issued its Final Results of Redetermination 

Pursuant to Court Remand (“Remand Redetermination”). In the Remand 

Redetermination, Commerce recalculated Hynix’s weighted-average antidumping duty 

by expensing research and development costs in accordance with the CAFC decision. 

Commerce determined that Hynix’s margin of dumping for the period of May 1, 1999, 

through December 30, 1999, is 2.70 percent. Further, Commerce corrected the 
ministerial error, identified by Micron in Hynix III, and used the corrected margin 

program for calculating Hynix’s importer-specific assessment rate. 

 Having received, reviewed, and duly considered Commerce’s Remand 

Redetermination and comments from the parties, this Court holds that Commerce 

complied with the remand order. Further, this Court holds that Commerce’s Remand 

Redetermination is reasonable, supported by substantial evidence on the record, and 

otherwise in accordance with law; and it is hereby 

ORDERED that Commerce’s Remand Redetermination of March 31, 2006, is 

affirmed in its entirety. 

 __/s/ Gregory W. Carman__ 

 Gregory W. Carman 

 

Dated: July 31, 2006 

 New York, New York
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Andrew BUDNICK, Respondent.

No. 40217.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 6, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 237 So.2d 825.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ., concur.
#### George BAKER v. J. D. McADORY, Sheriff.

No. 48011.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 25, 1974.

John R. Poole, W. E. Gore, Jr., Jackson, Dannye L. Hunter, Forest, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Billy Gore, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER and BROOM, JJ.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hinds County; Russel D. Moore Judge.

Affirmed.
### ATTACHMENT C-2 

# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Attachment B HEARINGCERTIFICATION This is to certifythat in accordance with the provisions ofTitle 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 .102, the following actions occurred: 1 . On July 17, 2001 the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) caused to be published in the Connecticut Law Journal (copy attached) a notice ofintent to adopt, revise and repeal State air qualityregulations, revise the State Implementation Plan for Air Quality and revise the State Title Voperating permit program ; 2 . In accordance with such notice, materials related to the public hearing were available for inspection and reviewin each Air Quality Control Region in the State of Connecticut; 3. In accordance with such notice, the Department held a public hearing on September 5, 2001 at the offices of the Department at 79 Elm Street, Hartford CT; 4 . Copies of the proposed regulations were mailed on July 11, 2001 to the Directors ofthe air pollution control agencies in New York, New

Jersey, Massachusetts and Rhode Island; 5. Copies of the proposed regulations were mailed on July 11, 2001 to Susan Studlien, Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection, EPANew

England. 6 . The public noticewas published as follows:

Newspaper AOCR Date Connecticut Post 43 7/17/O1 New London Day 41 7/17/01 The Register Citizen 44 7/17/O1 Hartford Courant 42 7/17/01 1 Supervising Environmental Analyst Bureau ofAir Management June 4, 2002 Paul E. Farrell ( Printed on Recycled Paper ) 79 Elm Street " Hartford, CT 06106 - 5127

bttp://dep.state.ct .us An Equal Opportunity Employer
#### Commonwealth *v.*Stahl, Appellant.

*507Argued November 13, 1934.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Balkrige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*W. Hensel Brown,*of *Bard <& Brotun,*for appellant.

*Paul A. Mueller,*District Attorney, for appellee.

December 18, 1934:

Opinion by

Cunningham, J.,

Frank Stahl, appellant herein, is the owner of the eleven slot machines involved in this proceeding and has appealed from an order of the court below adjudging them forfeited and directing that they be publicly destroyed.

The order was made pursuant to the provisions of Section 60 of the Penal Code of March 31, 1860, P. L. 382, 398, 18 PS §1445. Under the authority therein conferred, the county detective of Lancaster County seized the machines in question, at the direction of the *508district attorney, and made return in writing to the court below setting forth the nature and description of the machines, as well as the time, place and circumstances of the seizure. As directed in this section, the court fixed a time for hearing the parties. At this hearing the appellant, in the course of his testimony, admitted ownership of the machines; that they had been set up, used and employed as gambling devices; and that they could not be used for any purpose other than gambling for money.

The only defense suggested was that when appellant had been arrested, indicted, and entered a plea of guilty, some six months prior to the seizure with which we are now concerned, upon and to a charge of having set up certain other slot machines (which were seized and destroyed under Section 59 of the code) he withdrew the eleven machines now in question from operation and stored them in the basement of the home of a relative. The present seizure was made at that house and under circumstances which need not be detailed.

In view of appellant’s admission that these eleven machines had been used for unlawful gaming for a period of some eight months prior to his arrest and indictment, we are of opinion that their withdrawal and storage, under the circumstances disclosed by this record, did not in any way affect the right of the Commonwealth to insist upon their destruction. See In re: Petition of Supt. of Police, 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 520, 173 A. 753, affirmed by the Supreme Court, 316 Pa. 449, and Com. v. Heiland, ibid., 534, 173 A. 759.

The order is affirmed.
# C_2015010EN.01000701.xml

| 14.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/7

---

Corrigendum to Advanced Research and Technology for Embedded Intelligence and Systems Joint Undertaking — Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2013

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 408 of 15 November 2014
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 408 of 15 November 2014

(2015/C 10/07)

On page 36:

for:

for

‘http://www.acer.europa.eu/The_agency/Organisation/Administrative_Board/Pages/Opinions.aspx’,

read:

read

‘http://www.artemis-ju.eu/governing_board’.

---
# C_2018091EN.01005401.xml

| 9.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/54

---

P8_TA(2016)0289

Jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 June 2016 on the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships (COM(2016)0107 — C8-0128/2016 — 2016/0060(CNS))

(Special legislative procedure — consultation)

(2018/C 091/14)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2016)0107), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2016)0107),

| — | having regard to Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0128/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0128/2016),

| — | having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0208/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0208/2016),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

| 4. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

---
# C_2015367EN.01000504.xml

| 5.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/5

---

EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2014

(2015/C 367/19)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/funding/accounts.htm

---
#### Evelyn W. TURNER, Appellant, v. AIR LINE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL (A.L.P.A./A.F.L.C.I.O.), Appellee.

No. 71-875.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 29, 1972.

Lubow & Gary, Miami, for appellant.

Wyatt Johnson, Coral Gables, for ap-pellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Cloud v. Fallis, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669; and Johnson v. City of Pensacola, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 844.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3676 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3676

To amend the District of Columbia Spouse Equity Act of 1988 to provide 
    for coverage of the former spouses of judges of the District of 
                            Columbia courts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 22, 1993

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                 Committee on the District of Columbia

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the District of Columbia Spouse Equity Act of 1988 to provide 
    for coverage of the former spouses of judges of the District of 
                            Columbia courts.

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

SECTION 1. COVERAGE OF FORMER SPOUSES OF JUDGES OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
              COURTS UNDER SPOUSE EQUITY ACT.

    (a) In General.--Section 2 of the District of Columbia Spouse 
Equity Act of 1988 (sec. 1-3001, D.C. Code) is amended by striking 
``(A) and (C)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in the enactment of the District of Columbia 
Spouse Equity Act of 1988.

                                 <all>
```