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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          80,300
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  563,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                   316,800
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               537,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 986,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,330,000
<BONDS>                                        187,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     12,400
<COMMON>                                        49,400
<OTHER-SE>                                   (606,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   986,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               168,900
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,700
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Bobby Joe WILLIAMS and Allen Clayburn Justus, Appellants, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellees.

Nos. F-74-648 and F-74-650.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 2, 1976.

ORDER MODIFYING JUDGMENTS AND SENTENCES

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States, in *Williams and Justus v.*Oklahoma, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 3218, 49 L.Ed.2d -, has vacated the opinion of this Court affirming the judgments and sentences rendered in the above styled and numbered causes insofar as it left undisturbed the death sentences, and remanded these causes for reconsideration of this Court in the light of *Woodson et al. v. North Carolina,*- U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d - (1976) and *Roberts v. Louisiana,*U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 3001, 49 L.Ed.2d - (1976);

AND WHEREAS, this Court has this date, in *Riggs v. Branch,*Okl.Cr., 554 P.2d 823, reconsidered its prior holding in *Williams v. State,*Okl.Cr., 542 P.2d 554, and vacated and set aside that opinion insofar as it is inconsistent with *Riggs v. Branch,*supra.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, that the judgments and sentences rendered in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Case No. CRF-73-3181, be, and the same are hereby, modified from sentences of death, to sentences of life imprisonment at hard labor. The Clerk of this Court is directed to issue the Mandate FORTHWITH.

WITNESS OUR HANDS, and the Seal of this Court, this 2nd day of September, 1976.

TOM BRETT, P. J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.

BLISS, Jr., J.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3268

_____________________________
W ILLIAM L EE W ILSON , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court f or Columbia County

. Leandra G. Johnson , Judge

. July 27, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W OLF , L EWIS , and R AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 William Lee Wilson, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1320 

To amend title 13, United States Code, to require that any questionnaire 

used in determining the decennial census of population shall contain 

an option for respondents to indicate citizenship status or lawful presence 

in the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 22, 2019 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia, and Mr. GIBBS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 13, United States Code, to require that 

any questionnaire used in determining the decennial census of population shall contain an option for respondents 

to indicate citizenship status or lawful presence in the 

United States, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Census Accuracy Act 

5 of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1320 IH

1 SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP OR LAWFUL PRESENCE STATUS ON 

2 CENSUS QUESTIONNAIRES. 

3 Section 141 of title 13, United States Code, is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) by redesignating subsection (g) as sub6 section (h); and 

7 (2) by inserting after subsection (f) the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(g) In conducting the 2020 decennial census and 

10 each decennial census thereafter, the Secretary shall in11 clude in any questionnaire distributed or otherwise used 

12 for the purpose of determining the total population by 

13 States— 

14 ‘‘(1) a checkbox or other similar option for re15 spondents to indicate whether the respondent is a 

16 citizen or national of the United States, is lawfully 

17 admitted for permanent residence in the United 

18 State, is an alien who otherwise has lawful status 

19 under the immigration laws, or none of these; and 

20 ‘‘(2) in connection with the option relating to 

21 status under the immigration laws, a question re22 garding which Federal program or provision of law 

23 accorded the respondent such status.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
RCRA CLUSTERS XXI and XXII REVISED AUTHORJZATION APPLICATION 

INTRODUCTION 

The approach of this Revised Au thorization Application for RCRA Clusters XXI and 

XXII, requesting authority for all federal delegable hazardous waste regulations 

promulgated from July 1,2010 to July 1, 2013, will be to address updated documents and 

any changes from the Addendull: to Program Description for RCRA Clusters XVIII, XIX 

and XX, (Appendix II). Any documents that have changed have been included and others 

that have been cited and have not changed have not been included as they have been 

previously submitted. Added to this Revised Authorization Application are Regulatory 

Summaries of fmal federal hazardous waste regulations promulgated from 711 /1 0 to 

7/1/13 for RCRA Clusters XX I and XXII, (Appe ndix X), which have been adopted by 

reference into the Idaho Rules ar.d Standards for Hazardous Waste, (Appendix XI). There 

were no final federal RCRA hazardous waste regulations promulgated by EPA from July 

1,2012 to July 1,2013 . The rul es in these re gulatory summaries include the removal of 

Saccharin and its Salts as listed hazardous waste, dated 1211711 0, Technical Corrections 

to the Academics Lab Rule, dated 12/20/1 0, Revisions to LOR Treatment Standards for 

Carbamates, dated 611311 I, HW Manifest Printing Specifications Corrections, dated 

6/22/11 and I-lW Technical Corrections and Clarifi ca tions, dated 4/13/12. None of these 

rules have major impact on the implementation of the Idaho HW program. (The 

Hazardous Waste Program Summary, dated April 2000 and submitted in April 200 I for 

the purpose of background information, and the Idaho Hazardous Waste Facility Siting 

Act, submitted in September of2002, have not changed and have not been submitted with 

this app li cation The Hazardous Waste Management Act, (Appendix XII), the Idaho 

Environmental Protection and Health Act, (Appendix XIII) and the Idaho Public Records 

Act, (Append ix XIV), have been inc lud,,<./ wit I! their Idaho Code 20J 3 Cumulative 

Pocket Supplements (CPS) si nce these statutes have been referenced in the Attorney 

General's Statement signed January 9, 20 I 5, (Appendix I). 

This Revised Authort zat ion Appl icatio n has been developed with respect to regulations 

found in Title 40, Parts 271.6 a nd 271.21 , Code or Federal Regulation. The Attorney 

General's Statement, signed January 9, 2015, (Appendi x I), has been revised to support 

the regul atory eq ui va lency and consistenc y for all federal de legable regulations 

promulga ted as of July 1,20 12. The Revised ReRA Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA), signed 2/4/15 , is conta ined in Appendix V. The RCRA Data Management Lener 

of Agreement, dated 6117/03 , has also been included in (Appendix VI).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 13-299V 

Filed: March 19, 2015 

(Not to be published) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

JANET DEYEAR, *

* Stipulation; 

 Petitioner, * Attorneys’ Fees & Costs 

 * 

 v. * 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Margaret M. Guerra, Esq., Margaret M. Guerra, Attorney at Law, Fort Worth, TX for 

petitioner. 

Ann D. Martin, Esq., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC for respondent. 

DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1

Gowen, Special Master: 

 In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 I issued 

a decision adopting the parties’ stipulation on September 10, 2014. On March 19, 2015, 

the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact concerning attorneys’ fees and costs [Fee Stip.]. 

Fee Stip., filed Mar. 19, 2015. Additionally, pursuant to General Order #9, petitioners’ 

counsel asserted that petitioner did not personally incur litigation costs in this matter. Id. 

at para. 3. 

 The parties’ stipulation indicates that respondent does not object to the amended 

amount of $15,445.33 that petitioner is requesting for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 

to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 

U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will 

delete such material from public access. 

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq. 

(2006). 
 I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a 

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems 

reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award: 

 a lump sum of $15,445.33 in the form of a check payable jointly to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Margaret M. Guerra, Esq., for 

petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs. 

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.3

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 s/ Thomas L. Gowen 

 Thomas L. Gowen 

 Special Master 

 

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 

See Vaccine Rule 11(a).
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff, v. Betty May WYLIE, a/k/a Betsy Wylie, Defendant.

No. 80CA0037.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

Jan. 25, 1980.

PIERCE, Judge.

This is a non-adversary review under C.A.R. 4(d)(3) and (4) as provided by Colo. Sess.Laws 1979, Ch. 157, § 18-1-409.5 at 670. The sentence in question exceeds the presumptive range of 8 to 12 years plus one year parole as established in Colo.Sess.Laws 1979, Ch. 157, § 18-1 — 105(l)(a) at 669. We affirm.

Defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to murder in the second degree which had been reduced from a charge of murder in the first degree. She was sentenced to the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections for a period of 16 years, plus one year of parole, with credit for 92 days served in custody prior to being sentenced. At the sentencing hearing, the defendant waived her right to have a pre-sentence report and stipulated that the court could draw upon evidence heard by it at the preliminary hearing to support findings of aggravated circumstances. She also stipulated that there were aggravated circumstances.

The trial court made the following findings of aggravated circumstances:

> “1. The defendant Betty Wyle (sic) and the victim Mary Westbrook were acquainted prior to the homicide and ill will existed between them.

> “2. Betty Wylie is alleged to have made threats to the victim prior to the homicide.

> *495“3. After obtaining the muider weapon the defendant drove to the victim’s house, a trip which took approximately twenty minutes, allowing time for deliberation and reflection.

> “4. Defendant, Betty Wylie, fired two shots as the. victim ran from the house, suggesting further deliberation.

> “5. The victim, Mary Westbrook, was struck in the back of the head by one of the bullets.”

Having reviewed the record of the sentencing hearing and the above findings, we conclude that the findings are supported by the record of the sentencing hearing and that the sentence imposed is consistent with the purposes of the Colorado Code of Criminal Procedure as set forth in Colo.Sess.Laws 1979, Ch. 157, § 18-1-102.5 at 668. Under the facts present here, the sentence, which is greater than the presumptive range of § 18 — l-105(l)(a), is justified.

Sentence affirmed.

BERMAN and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30525 Conference Calendar

__________________ JAMES BOLTON, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus BURL CAIN, Acting Warden; RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney General, State of Louisiana, Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-531
- - - - - - - - - - February 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant James Bolton challenges the denial of his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court dismissed the petition after Bolton failed to file a timely response to the court's direction that he complete a form explaining why his petition should not be dismissed as an abuse of the writ, pursuant to Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Proceedings. On appeal, Bolton addresses only the merits of his substantive claims but does not address the RuleNo. 95-30525 -2- 9(b) issue, which he thereby abandons. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Because no challenge to the Rule 9(b) grounds is before us, we may not reach the merits. See Foret v. Whitley , 965 F.2d 18, 20 (5th Cir. 1992). The appeal is frivolous and is dismissed as such. See5th Cir. R. 42.2. APPEAL DISMISSED.
FILE COPY

RE: Case No. 15-0293 DATE: 4/L6/20I5

COA #: 13-13-00368-CV Tc#: Dc-12-00869

STYT,E: JOHN H. CARNEY & ASSOCIATES

v. MICHAEL ROSELLfNI, D.D.S.

Today the Supreme Court of Texas received and filed a motion for extension of time to file petition for review pursuant to Rule 53.7(f) in the above

nurùcered and styled case.

MS, DORIAN E. R¿,MIREZ

CLERK, 13TH COURT OE APPEALS

9OI LEOPARD STREET, lOTH ELOOR

coRPUS CHRTSTT/ TX 1I40L
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     ANNUAL  REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
     TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            504
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            387
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     4,014
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            888
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              895
<LOANS>                                        22,722
<ALLOWANCE>                                       204
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 29,489
<DEPOSITS>                                     16,522
<SHORT-TERM>                                        0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               707
<LONG-TERM>                                     9,538
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           24
<OTHER-SE>                                      2,669
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 29,489
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 1,467
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 359
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   39
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                1,865
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                638
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,010
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             855
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      66
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (22)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   752
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   151
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        151
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      108
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.39
<LOANS-NON>                                        50
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  139
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       1
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 204
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0



</TABLE>
#### Elaine Ruiz, Appellant, v Puerto Rican Association *543For Community Affairs, Inc. (PRAGA), et al., Respondents.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis GangelJacob, J.), entered on or about April 10, 1990, which dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The mother of the subject child surrendered it for adoption, expressly requesting that her own mother, petitioner, not be given custody or guardianship of the child. Petitioner has nevertheless expressed a strong interest in adopting her grandson, has attempted to intervene in the adoption, and presently challenges the adoption, which has already proceeded. Any constitutional claim is resolved by *Matter of Peter L.*(59 NY2d 513), which expressly ruled that members of an extended family of a child surrendered for adoption have no special right to custody of the child which permits them to override a decision by an authorized agency. Further, any constitutional claim would have depended upon factual issues which should have been reviewed administratively *(Matter of Dozier v New York City,*130 AD2d 128, 134-135). Since petitioner failed to request a hearing under Social Services Law § 372-e (4), she has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Accordingly, we affirm the order below dismissing the petition. Concur—-Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Ellerin, Wallach and Ross, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Mellinger & Associates, Inc., Appel*914lant. Thomas F. Hartnett, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 8, 1990, which assessed Mellinger & Associates, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions.

The conclusion that Mellinger & Associates, Inc. (hereinafter MA) exercised sufficient direction and control over the computer consultants to establish their status as employees is supported by substantial evidence in the record *(see, Matter of Gentile Nursing Servs. [Roberts],*65 NY2d 622; *Matter of Bertsch [Intertek Servs. Corp.—Hartnett],*159 AD2d 898). For example, MA paid the consultants directly on a monthly basis after they submitted time sheets to MA, the contract agreements that the consultants signed restricted activities with respect to MA’s clients, and MA solicited the clients to be serviced by the consultants. Although there were factors which could have arguably supported a contrary conclusion, there is substantial evidence to support the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision and it must therefore be upheld *(see, Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assocs. [Roberts]*60 NY2d 734, 736). We have examined MA’s remaining contention and find it lacking in merit.

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, with costs.