alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society, Inc., Respondent. John W. Draper et al., Appellants.

Two orders, Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Evans Brewster, S.), entered on or about October 14, 1987 and on or about August 26, 1988, respectively, unanimously affirmed, for the reasons stated by Evans Brewster, S., without costs and without disbursements. Motion by appellants to strike part of the reply brief is denied. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS–EL PASO

THIS CONSENT FORM SHALL BE USED ONLY FOR CASES IN WHICH A MAGISTRATE JUDGE IS

INITIALLY ASSIGNED PURSUANT TO STANDING ORDER 

In accordance with Standing Order Number 001, Fed.R.Civ.P. 73 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the above-captioned civil

matter has been assigned to Magistrate . All parties to the above-captioned civil 

matter are to select one of the following two options and return the Consent Form to Consents EP@txwd.uscourts.gov or mail 

to Clerk’s Office, Attention: Consents, U.S. District Court, 525 Magoffin Ave., Suite 105, El Paso, TX 79901-2578, within 30

days from the date the Consent Form was sent. Do not e-file this completed form in the case. This Consent Form was sent on

________________.

The party or parties listed below to the above-captioned civil matter consent pursuant to the provisions of Standing 

Order 19-1, 28 U.S.C. § 636(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73(b), to have the assigned Magistrate Judge conduct all further

proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of final judgment.

Any appeal from a judgment of the assigned Magistrate Judge shall be taken to the United States Court of Appeals 

in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of the District Court in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c)(3).

The party or parties listed below to the above-captioned civil matter do not consent to proceed before the 

assigned Magistrate Judge.

The party or parties listed below acknowledge that they are free to decline consent without adverse substantive 

consequences.

Name of Counsel (OR Party if Pro Se) Signature and Date Counsel for (Name of Party or Parties)

STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(For use in Direct Assignment of Civil Cases to Magistrate Judges only)

NAME,ADDRESS&TELEPHONENUMBER OFATTORNEY(S)ORPROSE

Plaintiff(s)

Defendant(s).

STATEMENT OF CONSENT TO PROCEED 

(For use in Direct Assignment of Civil Casesto

Magistrate Judges Only)

Case 3:20-cv-00080-LS Document 29 Filed 03/25/20 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.

vs.

INTEL CORPORATION, INTEL

CORPORATION, PARKERVISION,

INC.

§

§

§

§

§

Case Number: WA:20-CV-00108-ADA

ORDER RESETTING JURY SELECTION

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for

9:00 AM, in District Courtroom #1, on the Third Floor of the United States Courthouse, 800

Franklin Ave, Waco, TX, on February 06, 2023 due to inclement weather.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this order

to the defendant, counsel for defendant, the United States Attorney, U.S. Pretrial Services, United

States Probation Office, and any surety or custodian, if applicable. Further, counsel for the

defendant shall notify the defendant of this setting. If the defendant is on bond, he/she

shall be present.

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of January, 2023

______________________________

JEFFREY C. MANSKE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 283 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4914 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4914

 To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing Fluopyram and 
                             Tebuconazole.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

  Mr. Costa introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures containing Fluopyram and 
                             Tebuconazole.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES CONTAINING FLUOPYRAM AND TEBUCONAZOLE.

    (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        Mixtures            Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          containing N-{2-                                                  12/31/2015
                          [3-Chloro-5-
                          (trifluoromethyl)-
                          2-
                          pyridinyl]ethyl}-
                          alpha,alpha,alpha-
                          trifluoro-o-
                          toluamide
                          (Fluopyram) (CAS
                          No. 658066-35-4)
                          and (RS)-1-p-
                          chlorophenyl)-4,4-
                          dimethyl-3-(1H-
                          1,2,4-triazol-1-
                          ylmethyl)pentan-3-
                          ol (Tebuconazole)
                          (CAS No. 107534-
                          96-3), including
                          application
                          adjuvants
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3808.91.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4937 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4937

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of NN-(3,4-
         dichloro-phenyl)-N,Ndimethylurea with acrylate rubber.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

Mr. LaTourette introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of NN-(3,4-
         dichloro-phenyl)-N,Ndimethylurea with acrylate rubber.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF NN-(3,4-DICHLORO-PHENYL)-N,NDIMETHYLUREA WITH 
              ACRYLATE RUBBER.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.75 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to mixtures of NN-(3,4-
dichloro-phenyl)-N,Ndimethylurea with acrylate rubber) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2015''.
    (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>
```
NOTE:Thisorderisnonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KIM EDWARD LAUBE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FURMINATOR, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2011-1241

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 10-CV-7328, Judge 

Ronald S.W. Lew. 

______________________ 

O R D E R

Having received no objection to this court’s July 30, 

2013 order, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The appeal is dismissed. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

Case: 11-1241 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 08/14/2013
2 KIM LAUBE V. FURMINATOR, INC. 

 FOR THE COURT

 

 /s/ Daniel E. O'Toole

 Daniel E. O'Toole

 Clerk

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 14, 2013

s21

Case: 11-1241 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 08/14/2013
#### Moses SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27158.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 10, 1954.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the unlawful sale of whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

LINDA JANN LEWIS, MADISON LEE, 

ELLEN SWEETS, BENNY 

ALEXANDER, GEORGE MORGAN, 

VOTO LATINO, TEXAS STATE 

CONFERENCE OF THE NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION FOR THE 

ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED 

PEOPLE, TEXAS ALLIANCE FOR 

RETIRED AMERICANS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JOHN SCOTT,1 IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS TEXAS SECRETARY 

OF STATE, 

Defendant. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL NO. SA-20-CV-00577-OLG 

ORDER 

 Before the Court is the status of this matter. The United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fifth Circuit has issued its judgment and mandate reversing this Court’s order denying the Texas 

Secretary of State’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement. 

Dkt. No. 50; see Dkt. No. 31. The Fifth Circuit has remanded this matter “with instructions to 

dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims.” Dkt. No. 50 at 8. 

 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, within fourteen days of the entry of this Order, the 

parties shall submit a joint status report advising the Court regarding whether there are any 

remaining issues to be addressed before the Court enters judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims. 

1

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), John Scott was automatically substituted as the Defendant in 

this action when he took office as the Texas Secretary of State. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend 

the case caption as set forth above. 

FILED

DEPUTY 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BY: ________________________________ June 17, 2022

 JU

Case 5:20-cv-00577-OLG Document 51 Filed 06/17/22 Page 1 of 2
2 

 It is FURTHER ORDERED that, if the only remaining issue is the entry of judgment, 

the Defendant shall submit a proposed judgment at the time the parties file their joint status 

report. 

It is so ORDERED. 

SIGNED this day of June, 2022. 

 

ORLANDO L. GARCIA 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

17th

Case 5:20-cv-00577-OLG Document 51 Filed 06/17/22 Page 2 of 2
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                          
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                    
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Arkansas Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1,660  | 1,681  | 1,703 
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 1,774  | 1,801  | 1,958  | 2,069  | 2,227  | 2,019  | 1,992  | 1,997  | 1,986  | 1,772 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 1,731  | 1,669  | 1,750  | 1,552  | 1,607  | 1,563  | 1,470  | 1,475  | 1,328  | 1,542 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,581  | 1,616  | 1,650  | 1,663  | 1,835  | 1,964  | 2,269  | 3,305  | 5,626  | 10,869
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 14,178 | 16,370 | 11,035 | 13,518 | 12,789 | 8,339  | 7,416  | 8,267  | 6,740  | 5,834 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4,981  | 6,084  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

RES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2013-1008

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Middle District of Florida in No. 09-CV-0491, Judge 

Timothy J. Corrigan. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION

__________________________ 

Before DYK, PROST and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. 

PROST, Circuit Judge. 

O R D E R

The parties jointly move to remand this case to the 

United States District Court for the Middle District of 

Florida. 

RES Development Corporation appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment that the patent 

Case: 13-1008 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 07/18/2013
RES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. MOMENTIVE 

PERFORMANCE MATERIAL

2

in suit was invalid. The parties state that they have now 

settled the case and requested an indicative ruling from 

the district court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1, whether the district court would defer, deny, or grant a motion 

to vacate the underlying judgment if the case were remanded. The district court indicated pursuant to Rule 

62.1(a)(3) that it would grant the motion. 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion is granted. The case is remanded to 

the district court for further proceedings as may be appropriate. 

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk

s26 

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 18, 2013

Case: 13-1008 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 07/18/2013
**Exhibit 32.1**

***Certification pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002***

***(18 U.S.C.Section 1350)***

In connection with theQuarterly Report of American States Water Company and Golden State WaterCompany (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I Floyd E. Wicks, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

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

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| /s/ Floyd E. Wicks      |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |
| Floyd E. Wicks          |
| Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |
| Date: August 9, 2007    |

 

----
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER                                                                    SHARES
 C-0
              Incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware

                               INVENTOYCOM, INC.

                    Total Authorized Issue 25,000,000 Shares

                                                                 See Reverse for
                                                             Certain Definitions

20,000,000 Shares $.001 Par Value               5,000,000 Shares $.001 Par Value
       Common Stock                                     Preferred Stock

                                    SPECIMEN

This is to certify that _____________________________________ is the owner of

________________________________________________________________________________
            Fully Paid and Non-Assessable Shares of Common Stock of
                               INVENTOYCOM, INC.

transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder thereof in
person or by a duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate
properly endorsed. Witness, the seal of the Corporation and the signatures of
its duly authorized officers.

Dated

                               [GRAPHIC OMMITED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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.

1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 03-30868

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v.

SAMMIE L. WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

__________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 03-CR-30006-ALL

__________________

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In our previous opinion in this case, we affirmed Appellant

Williams’s conviction and sentence. See United States v.

Williams, No. 03-30868, 113 Fed. Appx. 620 (5th Cir. 2004) (per

curiam) (unpublished). Following our judgment, the defendant
2

timely petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari

alleging for the first time in his petition that the use of the

mandatory Sentencing Guidelines violated his Sixth Amendment

rights. The Supreme Court granted the writ, vacated defendant’s

sentence, and remanded to this court for consideration of

defendant’s sentence in light of its decision in United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We now reconsider the matter and

decide to reinstate our previous judgment affirming Williams’s

conviction and sentence.

Absent extraordinary circumstances, we will not consider a

defendant’s Booker-related claims presented for the first time in

a petition for writ of certiorari. United States v. Taylor, 409

F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 2005). Had Williams raised his Bookerrelated claims in his initial appellate brief, this court would

have reviewed the argument for plain error. Id. at 677.

Williams concedes that he cannot show that any error affected his

substantial rights, as is required under our circuit’s plain

error review. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521-22

(5th Cir. 2005). Because Williams fails plain error review, he

also fails to show extraordinary circumstances, which is a more

demanding standard. Taylor, 409 F.3d at 677.
3

Williams's structural-error and presumptive-prejudice

contentions are also foreclosed. See United States v.

Martinez-Lugo, 411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir. 2005); United States

v. Malveaux, 411 F.3d 558, 561 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2005).

For the reasons stated above, our prior disposition remains

in effect and we REINSTATE OUR EARLIER JUDGMENT affirming

Williams’s conviction and sentence.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Consolidated Statement of Income and the Consolidated Statement of
Financial Position and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000093397
<NAME> AMOCO CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             318
<SECURITIES>                                       562
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3606
<ALLOWANCES>                                        18
<INVENTORY>                                       1232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6548
<PP&E>                                           51670
<DEPRECIATION>                                   27722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   32666
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             6027
<BONDS>                                           4455
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2598
<OTHER-SE>                                       13747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     32666
<SALES>                                          15740
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 17617
<CGS>                                            11388
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    11388
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  3197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1853
<INCOME-TAX>                                       557
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1296
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1296
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>