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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5383 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Basic Violet 11. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Ms. FUDGE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Basic Violet 11. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BASIC VIOLET 11. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.22.24 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Basic Violet 11) is amended by striking the date in the 

7 effective period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 

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

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

10 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

11 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 10.4

                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                                 CASH BONUS PLAN
                                  OF SONAT INC.


     Sonat Inc.  hereby  amends the Cash  Bonus Plan of Sonat  Inc.,  as amended
effective as of December 1, 1995 (the "Plan"), as follows,  effective as of July
23, 1998.

     1. The first  sentence of Section 2.6 of the Plan is hereby amended to read
in its entirety as follows:

                  Notwithstanding  any other provision of this Plan or contained
           in any Annual Bonus Award granted hereunder  (including any provision
           for deferred  payment  thereof),  upon the  occurrence of a Change of
           Control (as defined in Section 4.6), a participant shall be deemed to
           have  earned  100%  of  the  Bonus  Opportunities  contained  in  any
           outstanding   Annual  Bonus  Awards  for  which  the   determinations
           described  in Section 2.3 have not been made,  and the amount of such
           Bonus Opportunities shall be paid promptly (and no later than 30 days
           after the Change of Control) in a cash lump sum.

           2. The Plan is in all other respects  ratified and confirmed  without
amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  Sonat Inc. has executed this document as of July 23, 1998.

                                 SONAT INC.


                                 By:
                                          Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr.
                                          Chairman of the Board,
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-454-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

Please take notice that attorney Travis L. Richins of the law firm ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC 

appears as counsel of record for Plaintiff WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS LICENSING 

AND DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Richins hereby requests that all notices required to be given, and all papers 

required to be served in the above-entitled and numbered cause, be copied to and served upon him.

Dated: June 11, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Travis L. Richins

Travis L. Richins

Texas State Bar No. 24061296

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (817) 470-7249

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950

travis@etheridgelaw.com

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 10 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record via the 

Court's CM/ECF electronic filing system in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure on June 11, 2020.

/s/ Travis L. Richins

Travis L. Richins

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 10 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8004** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS , Defendants

- Appellants
.

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6039**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. ISAAC LEE WOODS; REGINA BAILEY WOODS , Defendants

- Appellants.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at New Bern
. Louise W. Flanagan , Chief District Judge. ( 5:05

- cr - 00131

- FL

- 1 )

Submitted : April 8, 2010 Decided: May 7 , 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, Appellants Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnett e , Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney s , Clay Campbell Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated ap peals, Isaac Lee Woods and
Re gina Bailey Woods challenge two district court orders disposing of several of their post

- judgment motions and their objections to the United States’ attempt to collect on the judgment of restitution. We affirm. We find no error in the United States’ decision not to commence a separate civil action in order to enforce the judgment of restitution. We further note there was no clear error by the district court finding that there was nothing to suggest an improper criminal inv estigation by the United States instead of a legitimate attempt to collect on the judgment of restitution. We have reviewed the record and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Woods , No. 5:05

- cr - 00131

- FL

- 1 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 2 3, 2009; Dec. 28, 2009). We also deny the Woods’ motion for a copy of a transcript of the October 8, 2009 hearing prepared at the Government’s expense and their motion to expedite
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions ar e adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*

The State of Illinois notified this court that it was never served with process in the

district court and would not be filing a brief or otherwise participating in this appeal. After

examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Accordingly, the appeal is submitted on the appellant’s brief and the record. 

See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted December 19, 2007*

Decided December 26, 2007

 

Before

Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 07-3049

LARRY M. BANKS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division

No. 07 C 0547

Ronald A. Guzman, 

Judge.

O R D E R

In November 2006 Larry Banks was indicted in Illinois state court on

fourteen different charges, including four counts of attempted first-degree murder. 

While being held at the Elgin Mental Health Center awaiting trial, Banks filed

what he styled as a petition for a writ of mandamus, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 1651, in

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 07-3049 Page 2

federal district court. He argued only that the state prosecution violates his rights

under the Illinois constitution, and that accordingly the federal court should

intervene and stop the ongoing state proceedings. The district court allowed Banks

to proceed in forma pauperis but then dismissed the action sua sponte for failure to

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The

court reasoned that it did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against

state officials for violations of state law. Our review is de novo, see Hoskins v.

Lenear, 395 F.3d 372, 375 (7th Cir. 2005), and we agree that the district court

lacked “jurisdiction to issue a mandamus against state officials for violating their

duties under state law,” Coniston Corp. v. Vill. of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461,

469 (7th Cir. 1988); see also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir. 2001). 

The district court warned Banks that if a “prisoner has had a total of three

federal cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious or failing to state a claim,

he may not file suit in federal court without prepaying the filing fee unless he is in

imminent danger of serious physical injury.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also

Martin v. United States, 96 F.3d 853, 854 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that Prisoner

Litigation Reform Act applies to civil mandamus actions). Despite this warning,

Banks brought this appeal. Banks incurred one of his allotted three “strikes” for his

petition in the district court, and this appeal counts as a second.

AFFIRMED.
EDISON INTERNATIONAL
LOGO

                            EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN

                        2000 DIRECTOR AWARD CERTIFICATE

This award is made by Edison International to NAME ("Director"), as of April 20,
2000 pursuant to the Equity Compensation Plan ("Plan"). Edison International
hereby grants to Direcotr, as a matter of separate arrangement and not in liey
of any other compensation for services, the following:

                ------------------------------------------------
                   500 shares of Edison International Common
                  Stock to be issued as soon as practicable in
                accordance with the Director's instructions, and

                300 Edison International deferred stock units to
                    be credited under the Director Deferred
                               Compensation Plan.
                ------------------------------------------------

The deferred stock unit award is made subjec to the terms and conditions
contained in the Director Deferred Compensation Plan which are incorporated
herein by reference.
DISTRICT COURT
RICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

EMEKA WILSON-METUS,
Petitioner,

v. SA-20-CA-535-XR (HJB)
REYMUNDO CASTRO, DAN
BIBLE, MATTHEW T. ALBEN
CHAD WOLFE, UNITED STAT ES
STATES IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS
AND ENFORECMENT,

MMMM MND MM MM Mu

Respondents.
ORDER

Before the Court is the status of the above case, which has been referred to the undersigned
for consideration of pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Docket Entry 7.) A
telephonic attorney status conference was held in this case on August 13, 2020.

In accordance with the Court’s rulings at the conference, it is hereby ORDERED that, on
or before August 14, 2020, Respondents must file a supplement to its motion to dismiss (Docket
Entry 16), providing (1) argument concerning the recent relevant cases cited by Respondents
during the conference, and (2) any additional available information regarding Petitioner's health

and immigration status. Petitioner must respond to the supplement on or before August 21,

SIGNED on August 13, 2020.
)
VAP c =
Hey E Beka 7
Unfted-States Magistvate Judge

2020.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5426 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. HUELSKAMP introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain 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 FOOTWEAR. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Tennis shoes, basketball 

shoes, gym shoes, training 

shoes, and the like, the 

foregoing with outer soles 

of rubber or plastics (provided for in subheading 

(provided for in subheading 6402.99.31) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5426 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

NCS MULTISTAGE INC.,

 Plaintiff

-vsNINE ENERGY SERVICE, INC.,

 Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

W-20-CV-00277-ADA

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

After review of the parties’ supplemental briefing and the hearing held on January 12, 

2022, the Court enters the following claim construction for the term “casing string.”

Claim Term

Plaintiffs’ Proposed 

Construction

Defendant’s Proposed 

Construction

Court’s Construction

“casing string”

“pipe that is ≥ 4.5 inches 

in outer diameter used to 

case a wellbore”

“pipe run from the 

surface and intended to 

line the walls of a 

drilled well”

“pipe that is 

customarily ≥ 4.5 

inches in outer 

diameter, which is

intended to line the 

walls of a drilled well

so that a downhole 

tool can be deployed 

without restriction”

SIGNED this 12th day of January, 2022.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00277-ADA Document 226 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 1
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**646 CAF 09-02206**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF CURTIS P. HOWDEN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NAOMI R. KEELER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

CARR SAGLIMBEN LLP, OLEAN (JAY D. CARR OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

DUKE LAW FIRM, P.C., LAKEVILLE (SUSAN K. DUKE OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

BONITA STUBBLEFIELD, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, PIFFARD, FOR GWYNETH H.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Allegany County (Lynn L. Hartley, J.H.O.), entered March 16, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, granted sole custody of the parties’ child to petitioner.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order granting the father’s petition seeking sole custody of the parties’ child. Contrary to the mother’s contention, Family Court properly concluded that the father “ ‘ma[de] a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change in circumstances to require a hearing on the issue whether the existing custody order should be modified’ ” ( Matter of Hughes v Davis , 68 AD3d 1674, 1675). Here, the mother admitted that she withheld the child from the father, and the record establishes that she made numerous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father ( see e.g. Matter of Tyrone W. v Dawn M.P. , 27 AD3d 1147, lv denied 7 NY3d 705; Matter of Darla N. v Christine N. [appeal No. 2], 289 AD2d 1012).
We further conclude that the court properly determined that it was in the best interests of the child to award the father sole custody. The parties stipulated to the prior custody arrangement approximately two years and four months prior to the commencement of this proceeding. Although “a long-term custodial arrangement established by agreement should [continue] ‘unless it is demonstrated that the custodial parent is unfit or perhaps less fit’ ” ( Fox v Fox , 177 AD2d 209, 211), “ ‘[a] concerted effort by one parent to interfere**-2- 646 CAF 09-02206** 
with the other parent’s contact with the child is so inimical to the best interests of the child . . . as to, per se, raise a strong probability that [the interfering parent] is unfit to act as custodial parent’ ” ( Matter of Amanda B. v Anthony B ., 13 AD3d 1126, 1127). In addition to the mother’s admissions with respect to, inter alia, her unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father, the record establishes that the mother subjected the child to unnecessary medical examinations. Thus, the court’s custody determination, “based upon [its] first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses” ( Matter of Bryan K.B. v Destiny S.B. , 43 AD3d 1448, 1449 [internal quotation marks omitted]), has a sound and substantial basis in the record and should not be disturbed.

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George Cavallo, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of two counts of rape in the first degree and one count of assault in the second degree, defendant contends that his motion to strike rebuttal proof offered by the People should have been granted. We disagree. By having a friend testify, defendant sought to prove that he could not have committed *885the crime because he was at that friend’s home having breakfast. In rebuttal, the People put in proof that the driving distance from that witness’s home to the scene of the crime was about six tenths of a mile, or two minutes’ driving time. This proof was properly received because it tended to controvert a fact that defendant affirmatively sought to prove *(see, People v Harris,*57 NY2d 335, 345, *cert denied*460 US 1047; *People v Wheaton,*148 AD2d 931, 932, *lv denied*74 NY2d 853; *cf., People v Booker,*134 AD2d 949, 950, *lv denied*70 NY2d 953). Even if the evidence was not properly received on rebuttal, the court was authorized to vary the order of proof *(see,*CPL 260.30 [7]; *People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 248; *People v Harris, supra,*at 345).

Defendant’s argument that the People’s failure to give notice of the rebuttal witness pursuant to CPL 250.20 was reversible error is unpreserved, and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice.

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments on appeal, including his *pro se*arguments, and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—rape, first degree.) Present—Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                            
|                                                                                                         
|Virginia Natural Gas Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                         
|Virginia Natural Gas Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 101    | 838    | 878    | 165   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 438    | 776    | 748    | 743    | 742    | 696    | 868    | 894    | 859    | 839   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 67     | 800    | 697    | 471    | 806    | 395    | 248    | 446    | W      | 306   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 368    | 355    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
#### In the Matter of Robert J. Kerins, Petitioner, v City of Niagara Falls et al., Respondents.

Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs and matter remitted to respondent City Administrator for imposition of an appropriate sanction, in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner was terminated as a police lieutenant for using his influence to gain entrance to a tavern after legal closing hours for the purpose of obtaining alcoholic beverages. Although we conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of misconduct, we deem the penalty imposed disproportionate to the offense *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 233-234). Therefore, we remit the matter to respondent City Administrator to impose an appropriate sanction.

Petitioner’s remaining contentions lack merit. (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Fallon, J.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Balio, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5564 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on certain footwear. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. BLUMENAUER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on certain 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 FOOTWEAR. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5564 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Footwear with outer soles 

and uppers of rubber or 

plastics, other than house 

slippers, and other than 

such footwear for men or 

women, the foregoing with 

open toes or open heels, or 

of the slip-on type, that is 

held to the foot without the 

use of laces or buckles or 

other fasteners, except 

footwear of subheading 

6402.99.33 and except 

footwear having a foxing or 

a foxing-like band wholly 

or almost wholly of rubber 

or plastics applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper (provided 

for in subheading 

6402.99.49) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

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

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS