alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5502 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5502

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of (acetato) 
  pentammine cobalt dinitrate with a polymeric or paraffinic carrier.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

 Mrs. Schmidt 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 (acetato) 
  pentammine cobalt dinitrate with a polymeric or paraffinic carrier.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF (ACETATO) PENTAMMINE COBALT DINITRATE WITH A 
              POLYMERIC OR PARAFFINIC CARRIER.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.03.34 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to mixtures of (acetato) 
pentammine cobalt dinitrate with a polymeric or paraffinic carrier) 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 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 92ND DISTRICT COURT of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREE TINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 6th day of
November, 2014 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Vicente Fabian, Appel lant,

v.

The State of Texas Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13

- 14

- 00150

- CR (Tr.Ct.No. CR

- 3781

- 11

- A)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 6 , 2014.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said C ourt of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof affixed, at the City of Ed inburg, Texas this 30th day of January, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
#### CHOATE v. STATE.

No. 25400.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 17, 1951.

*180No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated. The jury assessed a fine of $50.00.

The record brought forward in this case contains neither a statement of facts nor bill of exceptions. All the proceedings appear to be regular. Nothing is presented for consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Newcastle Investment Corp.
(the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Wesley R.
Edens, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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.

/s/ Wesley R. Edens
--------------------
Wesley R. Edens
Chief Executive Officer
March 9, 2004

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
AO 399 (01/09) Waiver of the Service of Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To:

(Name of the plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

Date:

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Printed name of party waiving service of summons Printed name

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons

and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in

the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure.

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the plaintiff

and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been served.

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC

ZTE CORP., ZTE (USA) INC., AND ZTE (TX), INC.

6:20-CV-00490-ADA

James L. Etheridge

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, 

two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 07/01/2020 , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the 

United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

07/01/2020

ZTE (TX) INC. Eric S. Robinson

DUNLAP BENNETT & LUDWIG

7215 Bosque Boulevard

Waco, Texas 76710

erobinson@dbllawyers.com

(254) 870-7302

s/ Eric S. Robinson

Case 6:20-cv-00490-ADA Document 11 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 1
#### GEORGE ERHARD v. MORITZ WAGNER.2

June 16, 1911.

Nos. 17,131—(86).

Former decision followed.

Action in the district court for Carver county to enjoin defendant from maintaining a certain drainage ditch and to recover $350 damages for injury to plaintiff’s land. The case was tried before Powers, J., acting for the judge of the Eighth judicial district, who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff, and for $70. From an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, he appealed.

Affirmed.

*John J. Fahey,*for appellant.

*Thomas F. Graven,*for respondent.

2

Reported in 131 N. W. 1133.

*529Per Curiam.

This action was before the court on a former appeal. 104 Minn. 258, 116 N. W. 577. A second trial resulted in an order for judgment in plaintiff’s favor, and defendant appealed from an order denying a new trial. We have examined the record with care, and find the evidence substantially like that presented on the first appeal, and therefore follow and apply the former decision as the law of the case. The facts are fully stated in the opinion therein rendered, and need not be repeated.

Order affirmed.
----

Action brought on 18 April 2006 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

(Case C-184/06)

(2006/C 154/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.   Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination

The Kingdom of Spain believes that, in so far as the contested regulation does not allocate to Spain quotas in the Community waters of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, it infringes the principle of non-discrimination since, upon expiry of the transitional period laid down in the Act of Accession, the other Member States are granted the right of access to those waters and their resources, whereas the Kingdom of Spain is granted only the right of access to waters.

2.   Incorrect interpretation of the Act of Accession of Spain

In regulating the transitional period for Spain concerning fisheries, the Act of Accession does not distinguish between access to waters and access to resources. Moreover, the provisions of the Act of Accession must be interpreted in the light of their context and purpose.

3.   Infringement of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 2371/2002 (2)

The failure to allocate to Spain quotas which constitute new fishing opportunities distributed for the first time after expiry of the transitional period laid down in the Act of Accession infringes the above provision.

----

(1)OJ L 16 of 20.1.2006, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ L 358 of 31.12.2002, p. 59).

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 11


                        STERLING BANCORP AND SUBSIDIARIES
                 Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended                 Six Months Ended
                                                             June 30,                          June 30,
                                                   ---------------------------       ---------------------------
                                                      2000             1999             2000             1999
                                                   ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------
<S>                                                <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
Net income                                         $3,998,658       $3,551,431       $7,877,217       $7,016,053
Less: preferred dividends                              20,540           16,319           41,527           32,950
                                                   ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------
NET INCOME AVAILABLE FOR COMMON SHAREHOLDERS
    AND ADJUSTED FOR DILUTED COMPUTATION           $3,978,118       $3,535,112       $7,835,690       $6,983,103
                                                   ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========



WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING          8,290,665        8,519,698        8,322,385       $8,552,318
Add dilutive effect of:
    Stock options                                      77,771          133,211           79,163          139,533
    Convertible preferred                             240,678          242,906          241,194          243,344
                                                   ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------
ADJUSTED FOR ASSUMED DILUTED COMPUTATION            8,609,114        8,895,815       $8,646,743       $8,935,196
                                                   ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE                           $     0.48       $     0.42       $     0.94       $     0.82
                                                   ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========
DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE                         $     0.47       $     0.40       $     0.91       $     0.78
                                                   ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========
</TABLE>


                                       30
EXHIBIT 3

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-4 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-4 Filed 03/17/21 Page 2 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-4 Filed 03/17/21 Page 3 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-4 Filed 03/17/21 Page 4 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-4 Filed 03/17/21 Page 5 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-4 Filed 03/17/21 Page 6 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-4 Filed 03/17/21 Page 7 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 88-4 Filed 03/17/21 Page 8 of 8
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,139
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  434,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     63,021
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               681,375
<PP&E>                                       8,312,960
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,037,593
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,779,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,500,819
<BONDS>                                      1,101,691
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       111,388
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,508,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,779,621
<SALES>                                      1,735,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,034,275
<CGS>                                        1,495,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,575,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               773,026
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              64,050
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (448,688)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (161,342)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (287,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (287,346)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.61)
        

</TABLE>
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 

### ★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 06/26 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 26 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.44 N 77.04 WMeters AGL
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6556

RODNEY COBBS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MICHELLE B. MITCHELL; GARY K. ARONHAIT,

Virginia Secretary of Public Safety; DOCTOR

FREUND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-99-1732-AM)

Submitted: October 31, 2000 Decided: November 13, 2000

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Cobbs, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

March 20, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on March 22, 2000. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that

we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision.

See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Cobbs, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000)

complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find that

this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. See Cobbs v. Mitchell, No.

CA-99-1732-AM (E.D. Va. Dec. 6, 1999 & Mar. 22, 2000).* 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
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56 Filed 11/09/20 Page 4 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56 Filed 11/09/20 Page 5 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56 Filed 11/09/20 Page 6 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56 Filed 11/09/20 Page 7 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56 Filed 11/09/20 Page 8 of 8
#### HOWARD v. STATE.

No. 25951.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 22, 1952.

George M. Hopkins, Jr., Denton, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austion, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information with operating an automobile upon a public street in the city of Denton, Texas, and therewith committed an aggravated assault upon the person of Jack Mason by colliding with and causing injury to the person of Jack Mason who was then and there upon said street. The punishment assessed is a fine of $500.

There is no statement of facts in the record, but we find two bills of exception.

Bill No. 1 is concerned with the fact that upon reading the verdict to the jury, the county judge read the same as follows: “We the jury find the defendant guilty of aggravated assault and assess his punishment at *Fine*Hundred Dollars. H. F. Burke, Foreman of the Jury.” Thereupon the foreman spoke out and said “Five Hundred Dollars,” and the Court after comparing the handwriting and again looking at the charge in open court read the verdict as follows: “We the jury, find the defendant guilty of aggravated assault and assess his punishment at Five Hundred Dollars. H. F. Burke, Foreman of the Jury.” The court then polled each juror in open court in order to ascertain whether or not that was his verdict, and each juror said that such was his verdict. The court thereupon accepted the verdict assessing the defendant’s punishment at a fine of $500. We see nothing in this bill that would require a reversal of this cause.

Bill No. 2 complains because the witness, Jack Mason, who was allowed to testify as to the probable speed of appellant’s car at the time the witness was struck thereby, had failed to qualify himself as being capable of telling the speed of automobiles. The court sustained the objection, and the witness again testified as to his knowledge of the speed of automobiles. The witness was asked by the State’s attorney to give his opinion as to the speed of the appellant’s automobile at the time *174of the collision. He then testified that the appellant’s car was traveling at a speed of 80 miles an hour immediately prior to' the collision. No error is reflected by the bill.

There being no other matters in the record called to our attention, and no error appearing therein, the judgment will be affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          24,779
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  120,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,813
<INVENTORY>                                    126,237
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               295,160
<PP&E>                                         346,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,328
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 618,432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          142,136
<BONDS>                                        155,897
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,934
<OTHER-SE>                                     264,265
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   618,432
<SALES>                                        202,475
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,475
<CGS>                                          157,621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  157,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,170
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,850
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,320
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,320
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
        

</TABLE>