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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-03-1999
<CASH>                                         22,194
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  73,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                   20,774
<INVENTORY>                                    50,141
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               213,590
<PP&E>                                         336,372
<DEPRECIATION>                                 187,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 371,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          154,968
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       100
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,832
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   371,506
<SALES>                                        273,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               273,176
<CGS>                                          164,271
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  164,271
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               49,068
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                58,970
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (17,054)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            41,750
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   41,750
<EPS-BASIC>                                  4.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  4.19




</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7601
JAMES B. SKIPWITH, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-04-463-2) Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 3, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James B. Skipwith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: James B. Skipwith noted this appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies. Skipwith has filed a notice that he wishes to withdraw his appeal as to the habeas claims, but pursue his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). Because Skipwith did not assert any claims for relief under § 1983 in the district court, this court cannot consider such claims. See Muth v. United States , 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting that issue raised for first time on appeal generally are not considered absent exceptional circumstances). Moreover, because his conviction has not been invalidated or otherwise called into question, Skipwith’s § 1983 claims are not cognizable. See Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). In light of Skipwith’s withdrawal of his challenge to the district court’s order, we deny a certificate of appealability, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003), and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 23999.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1948.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1948.

Billy Hall, of Littlefield, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for the unlawful possession of whisky for the purpose of sale in Lamb County, a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $500.

 To sustain the conviction it was incumbent upon the State to show the dry status of Lamb County. This the State failed to do, because there is no testimony showing the publication, as required by law, of the order declaring the result of the election and putting local option into effect. Such proof is necessary to show a dry area. Green v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 552, 101 S. W.2d 241; Murray v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 242, 115 S.W.2d 407; Trapp v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 235, 167 S.W.2d 525; Langston v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 35, 171 S.W.2d 371.

Beoause the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals a.nd approved by the court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTEL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00108-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE REGARDING AGREED AMENDMENT TO SCHEDULING ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s Amended Standing Order Regarding Joint or Unopposed Request 

to Change Deadlines dated March 7, 2022, Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel”) hereby provides 

notice that the parties have agreed to amend the August 1, 2022 Amended Scheduling Order DE 

150 to extend the deadline for exchanging Rebuttal Expert Reports from October 7, 2022 to 

October 10, 2022. 

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 168 Filed 10/06/22 Page 1 of 3
2

Dated: October 6, 2022

Michael J. Summersgill (pro hac vice)

Sarah B. Petty (pro hac vice)

Marissa A. Lalli (pro hac vice)

Samuel C. Leifer (pro hac vice)

Alicia Coneys (pro hac vice)

Harry Hanson (pro hac vice filed)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

 AND DORR LLP

60 State Street

Boston, Massachusetts 02109

Tel: (617) 526-6000

Email: michael.summersgill@wilmerhale.com

Email: sarah.petty@wilmerhale.com

Email: marissa.lalli@wilmerhale.com

Email: samuel.leifer@wilmerhale.com

Email: alicia.coneys@wilmerhale.com

Email: harry.hanson@wilmerhale.com

Mary V. Sooter (pro hac vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

 AND DORR LLP

1225 17th Street, Suite 2600

Denver, Colorado 80202

Tel: (720) 274-3164

Fax: (720) 274-3133

Email: mindy.sooter@wilmerhale.com

Todd Zubler (pro hac vice)

Isley M. Gostin (pro hac vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

 AND DORR LLP

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20006

Tel: (202) 663-6000

Email: todd.zubler@wilmerhale.com

Email: isley.gostin@wilmerhale.com

Jason F. Choy (pro hac vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

 AND DORR LLP

350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, California 90071

Tel: (213) 443-5300

Email: jason.choy@wilmerhale.com

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel

J. Stephen Ravel

Texas State Bar No. 16584975

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP

303 Colorado, Suite 2000

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel: (512) 495-6429

Email: steve.ravel@kellyhart.com

James E. Wren

Texas State Bar No. 22018200

One Bear Place, Unit 97288

Waco, Texas 76798

Tel: (254) 710-7670

Email: james.wren@baylor.edu

Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 168 Filed 10/06/22 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing 

document via the Court’s CM/ECF system on October 6, 2022.

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel

J. Stephen Ravel

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 168 Filed 10/06/22 Page 3 of 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Gardner, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant validly waived his right to appeal, which precludes review of the merits of the suppres*938sion court’s denial of his suppression motion *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1; *People v Roberts,*152 AD2d 678, 679, *lv denied*74 NY2d 851). There is no " 'uniform mandatory catechism of pleading defendants’ ” *(People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 16; *People v Nixon,*21 NY2d 338, 353, *cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York,*393 US 1067), and the record supports the conclusion that defendant, who was represented by counsel throughout these proceedings, knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently relinquished his rights upon entering a plea of guilty *(see, People v Harris, supra,*at 17). We decline to modify defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, La Mendola, J.—criminal possession of controlled substance, fourth degree.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Green and Balio, JJ.
|                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                 
|                                                                                              
|North Dakota Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                              
|                                                                                              
|North Dakota Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 9     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 37     | 2      | 4      | 3      | 0      | 12     | 4      | 1      | W      | 2     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

rtv 89, 1939 

TOUX 

8tatwl quoutlon 
. - 
. , 

tmrr. tmrving and dooeptln(; pay LIE the crand jury hniliff 

uhile euoh oonstable retains ble ofiloo as ccnetable. 

Truetlni[ thet the lon:qoln(: nnmera :cwr inyllby, we re8el.n 

Very truly yours 

A-TcRRET l3rYItRAL OF TEXM 

ASPROQRD:
|                                                                                                               
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                           
|View History:                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                               
|No chart available.                                                                                            
|No chart available.                                                                                            
|                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                               
|Calif--Coastal Region Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Decreases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5030 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women’s footwear covering the 

ankle. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mrs. CAPPS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain women’s 

footwear covering the ankle. 

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 WOMEN’S FOOTWEAR COVERING THE 

4 ANKLE. 

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: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Women’s footwear with uppers of furskin, valued over 

$30/pair, covering the 

ankle (provided for in subheading 6405.90.90) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5030 IH

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-11085 Conference Calendar

RICHARD ALLEN SWARTZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus EMPLOYEES OF TEXAS BOARD OF PARDON AND PAROLE; ERIC TRAINER, Parole Officer; CECELIA ROY, Parole Officer; DON CARTER, Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:95-CV-2020-P

- - - - - - - - - - August 19, 1998 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The motion by Richard Allen Swartz, Texas inmate #382337, to consolidate appeals is DENIED. Swartz seeks to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP) the dismissal for frivolousness of his civil rights complaint. Swartz is BARRED by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) from proceeding IFP because, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, Swartz has brought an action or appeal in a United States Court that wasNo. 97-11085 -2- dismissed for frivolousness, for maliciousness, or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Ctr. , 136 F.3d 458, 462-64 (5th Cir. 1998); Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Swartz v. Kennedy , No. 96-10982 (5th Cir. June 12, 1997) (unpublished) (two strikes); Swartz v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles , No. 96-11047 (5th Cir. June 12, 1997) (unpublished) (two strikes). Accordingly, Swartz’s IFP status is DECERTIFIED. He may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This appeal is DISMISSED. Swartz has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee of $105 to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE DENIED. IFP DECERTIFIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
|                                                                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                                                      
|View History:                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                                          
|Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves New Reservoir in Old Fields (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                          
|                                                                                                                          
|Texas--RRC District 10 Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves New Reservoir in Old Fields (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 2      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023