alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,000,661
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,985,461
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,684
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,627,753
<PP&E>                                      54,810,295
<DEPRECIATION>                              28,371,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,658,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       34,763,811
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,958,996
<COMMON>                                         1,548
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,066,302)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,658,053
<SALES>                                      5,279,921
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,279,921
<CGS>                                          406,228
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,418,165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,431,563
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (21,251,173)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (21,251,173)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (21,251,173)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.67)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2368 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2368

To suspend temporarily the duty on 40% Polymer acid salt/polymer amide 
                           60% Butyl acetate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Voinovich (for himself and Mr. Brown) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on 40% Polymer acid salt/polymer amide 
                           60% Butyl acetate.

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

SECTION 1. 40% POLYMER ACID SALT/POLYMER AMIDE 60% BUTYL ACETATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      40% Polymer acid    0%           No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        salt/polymer                                                       31/2011.......
                        amide 60% Butyl
                        acetate (provided
                        for in subheading
                        3208.90.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. Willard B. DUGAS, Sylvia G. Dugas MacDonald, and Dami Leigh Dugas.

No. CA 87 0431.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

May 27, 1987.

Stephen P. Strohschein, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant General Elec. Co.

Alex W. Wall, Sr., Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee Willard Dugas.

Before SAVOIE, CRAIN and JOHN S. COVINGTON, JJ.

JOHN S. COVINGTON, Judge.

Appellee, Willard Dugas, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The grounds for the motion are that this court has previously addressed the issue raised by the appeal on an application for writs filed by appellants, General Electric Company and Robert E. Brizendine, and that the appeal was taken from an interlocutory judgment which does not cause irreparable injury. Appellants are appealing the trial court’s judgment of November 19,1986, which sustained appellee’s dilatory exception raising the objection of improper joinder of parties and dismissed Robert Brizendine’s petition joining appellee as a defendant. Following the judgment, appellants filed a writ application as well as a motion for appeal. Appellants raised the same issue in the writ application as they did in the appeal, that the trial court erred in sustaining the objection of improper joinder. On March 13, 1987, this court denied the writ application on the basis that the judgment sustaining the dilatory exception is an appealable judgment and that relator’s remedy is by review on appeal.

Appellee first contends that the merits of the issue raised on appeal have already been addressed by this court. However, the language used in the order denying writs indicates that this court did not consider the merits but instead stated that relator’s proper remedy is by appeal. Consequently, this argument has no merit.

Appellee also argues that this court meant that the issue should be decided on an appeal after a trial on the merits. However, the order denying writs states appellant may appeal the judgment sustaining the dilatory exception at this stage of the proceedings.

Appellee further maintains the appeal should be dismissed because the judgment sustaining the dilatory exception is interlocutory and does not cause irreparable injury. This issue has already been decided by this court on the writ application. A majority of the panel agreed with the writ report’s conclusion that the judgment on the exception is a final judgment since Robert Brizendine’s petition joining appellee was dismissed. Since the court has already considered this issue, the motion to dismiss is denied.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL IS DENIED.
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**





In
      connection with the periodic report of ENERGENX, INC., a Nevada corporation
      (the
“Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, GARY A. BEDINI, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.




Date:
              August 9,
              2007By:
            /s/Gary
              A. BediniGary
              A. Bedini
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2444 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain children’s textile upper footwear. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWNBACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain children’s textile 

upper footwear. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN CHILDREN’S TEXTILE UPPER FOOT4 WEAR. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2444 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Other footwear with uppers 

of textile materials (other 

than of vegetable fibers), 

other than house slippers, 

other than for men or women 

(provided for in subheading 

6405.20.90) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JOHN GERINGER, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-10155 

D.C. No. 5:12-cr-00888-EJD-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

John Geringer appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 

140-month sentence imposed on remand for resentencing following his guilty-plea 

conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1349; mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; and securities fraud, in 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-10155

violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff, and 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5 and 

240.10b5-2. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Geringer contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to 

address his non-frivolous, mitigating arguments and to consider the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors. We review for plain error, see United States v. ValenciaBarragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. 

The record reflects the district court considered Geringer’s mitigating arguments

and the relevant section 3553(a) factors and explained its reasons for imposing a 

within-Guidelines sentence, including the nature of the offense and the need to 

afford adequate deterrence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (sentencing judge need not expressly address every sentencing 

argument). 

Geringer also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 

51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) 

factors and totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of the offense

and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1708

MARCUS D. KELLY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

QVC,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

KATHY MCGEARY, Employee Relations; MIKE GEORGE, CEO of QVC; 

STERLING INFOSYSTEMS, Compliance Department; MS. CLARE HART,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. 

R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:17-cv-02858-RBH)

Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 21, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Marcus D. Kelly, Appellant Pro Se. William Lee Duda, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH 

SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Marcus D. Kelly appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his employment 

discrimination complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that 

relief be denied and advised Kelly that failure to file timely, specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. United States v. 

Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

154-55 (1985). Although Kelly filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not specific 

to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Midgette, 

478 F.3d at 622 (holding “that to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, 

a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient 

specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection”).

*

 * We further note that, in his informal brief, Kelly fails to contest the district court’s 

order finding that he failed to exhaust several of his claims. Thus, he has forfeited appellate 

review of that order as well. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 

(4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, 

our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).
4

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 140

Congratulating the United States women’s soccer team for winning the 1999

Women’s World Cup, recognizing the important contribution of each

individual team member to the United States and to the advancement

of women’s sports, and inviting the members of the United States women’s soccer team to the United States Capitol to be honored and recognized by the Senate for their achievements.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 14, 1999

Mr. CAMPBELL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Congratulating the United States women’s soccer team for

winning the 1999 Women’s World Cup, recognizing the

important contribution of each individual team member

to the United States and to the advancement of women’s

sports, and inviting the members of the United States

women’s soccer team to the United States Capitol to

be honored and recognized by the Senate for their

achievements.

Whereas each of the athletes on the United States women’s

soccer team has honored the Nation through her dedication to excellence;
2

•SRES 140 IS

Whereas the United States women’s soccer team has raised

the level of awareness and appreciation for women’s

sports throughout the United States;

Whereas the members of the United States women’s soccer

team have become positive role models for the young people of the United States aspiring to participate in national and international level sports; and

Whereas the United States women’s soccer team has qualified

for the 2000 summer Olympic games: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. CONGRATULATION, RECOGNITION, AND INVI3 TATION.

4 The Senate—

5 (1) congratulates the United States women’s

6 soccer team for winning the 1999 Women’s World

7 Cup;

8 (2) recognizes the important contribution of

9 each individual team member to the United States

10 and to the advancement of women’s sports; and

11 (3) invites the members of the United States

12 women’s soccer team to the United States Capitol to

13 be honored and recognized by the Senate for their

14 achievements.
3

•SRES 140 IS

1 SEC. 2. TRANSMISSION OF ENROLLED RESOLUTION.

2 The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit an en3 rolled copy of this resolution to the United States women’s

4 soccer team.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6505]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1228-000]


High Majestic Wind II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
High Majestic Wind II, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is April 2, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#074142554448696b6e696254727777687573476162756429606871"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d2949780919dbcbebbbcb781a7a2a2bda0a692b4b7a0b1fcb5bda4">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 13, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6505 Filed 3-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered July 31, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00798-CV

SUZLON ENERGY LIMITED, Appellant

V.

TRINITY STRUCTURAL TOWERS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-00094

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s July 23, 2013 opposed motion and amended motion to 

stay its briefing deadline. The trial court signed findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 

10, 2013. Appellant filed a motion for amended findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 

19, 2013. Appellant’s brief in this accelerated appeal is currently due on August 14, 2013. 

Appellant asks the Court to extend the deadline to file its brief to September 30, 2013 because of 

the “still-pending findings and conclusions practice.” We GRANT appellant’s motion as 

amended TO THE EXTENT that appellant shall file its brief on or before September 3, 2013. 

We caution appellant that no further extension will be granted in this accelerated appeal 

absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Cranford WHEELER (In re South Central Insurance Company).

No. 87-KK-0068.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 20, 1987.

In re South Central Insurance Co. — Third Party; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. K-5293; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “M-4”, No. 302-920.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 1275.

Granted.
#### Robert BUIE v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 57412.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Jan. 6, 1988.

Samuel H. Wilkins, Jackson, for appellant.

Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Atty. Gen., by Leyser Q. Morris, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and ANDERSON and ZUCCARO, JJ.

Affirmed.

HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Alfred W. Varian, an Attorney, Respondent, upon the Application of the Societe Francaise des Films et Cinematographs “Eclair,” Appellant.

*Matter of Varian.*170 App. Div. 978, affirmed.

(Argued February 24, 1916;

decided March 14, 1916.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered October 29, 1915, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion for an order directing, summarily, an attorney to account for his acts as to the formation and management of certain corporations and also" as to his disposition of certain stock alleged to have been wrongfully disposed of.

*Eliot Norton*for appellant.

*Edwin W. Willcox*and *James W. Osborne*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Seabury and Pound, JJ.