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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5728 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5728

         To extend the temporary reduction of duty on Acephate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To extend the temporary reduction of duty on Acephate.

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

SECTION 1. ACEPHATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.25.68 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Acephate) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2012'' 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with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 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>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                             5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1000
       
<S>                                                 <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            82125
<SECURITIES>                                       2003
<RECEIVABLES>                                    238671
<ALLOWANCES>                                       2798
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 481762
<PP&E>                                           284732
<DEPRECIATION>                                   156147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   787408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            375320
<BONDS>                                           23866
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          17731
<OTHER-SE>                                       301446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     787408
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 349525
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    332400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   8323
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    9205
<INCOME-TAX>                                       3637
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                5568
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                       5568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.43
        

</TABLE>
1

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.

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) 

INC., AND ZTE (TX), INC. 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-487-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-488-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-489-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-490-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-491-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-492-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-493-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-494-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-495-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-496-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-497-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER REGARDING VENUE DISCOVERY 

Having considered the parties’ positions at the May 11, 2021 hearing regarding venue 

discovery, the Court hereby orders the following: 

1. Defendants are ordered to produce a witness on behalf of the ZTE entities by May 26, 

2021 to testify on the previously noticed topics for such ZTE entities. The deposition 

is limited to four hours.

2. Defendants are ordered to produce the following sealed filings: 

a. Dkt. Nos. 37, 40, 41, 44, 65, 67, 69, 73, 74, 92, 126, 129, 145, 153 and 193 filed 

in Seven Networks, LLC v. ZTE (ISA) Inc. and ZTE Corp. ZTE (USA) Inc. and 

ZTE Corp., Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-1495 (N.D. Tex.);

b. Dkt. Nos. 47 and 49 filed in X-Mobile Technologies LLC v. ZTE Corporation, 

ZTE (TX) Inc., and ZTE (USA) Inc., Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-696 (E.D. Tex.); 

c. Dkt. Nos. 49, 51, 58, 59, 64, 66 filed in Am. GNC Corp. v. ZTE Corp., Civil 

Action No. 4:17-CV-620, (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2017); 

d. Dkt. Nos. 80 and 83 filed in Fractus, S.A. v. ZTE Corporation et al., Civil 

Action No. 2:17-cv-00561-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

3. Defendants are ordered to produce venue discovery in its possession, custody, or 

control, including depositions and declarations, relating to the sealed filings listed 

above. To the extent Defendants can obtain such documents by requesting them from 

its counsel in the above listed counsel, Defendants are ordered to do so.

Case 6:20-cv-00494-ADA Document 80 Filed 05/20/21 Page 1 of 2
2 

4. Defendants have represented that they will produce, or have produced, the documents

listed in Exhibit A attached to Plaintiff’s chart submitted to the Court, to the extent

such documents exist. If not already produced by the date of this order, Defendants are

ordered to promptly produce such documents.

ORDERED this _____ day of ____, 2021. 

___________________________________ 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20th May

Case 6:20-cv-00494-ADA Document 80 Filed 05/20/21 Page 2 of 2
IN THE COURT OF CRIM INAL AP P EALS OF TEXAS

P D- 0 2 3 9 -2 2

AN DR EW SH IR LEY , J R., A ppe lla nt

v.

THE S TATE O F TEXAS

ON AP P ELL ANT’S P ETIT ION F OR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

F ROM THE NINTH COURT OF AP P EALS

HARRIS COUNTY

P er c uria m .
O R D E R

T h e C o u r t g r a n t s A p p e l l a n t ’ s P e t i t i o n f o r D i s c r e t i o n a r y R e v i e w a n d g r a n t s

d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w o n i t s o w n m o t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n :

D i d t h e T e x a s D i s a s t e r A c t , T e x a s G o v e r n m e n t C o d e § 4 1 8

. 0 1 6 ( a ) ,

a u t h o r i z e t h e g o v e r n o r t o s u s p e n d T e x a s T r a n s p o r t a t i o n C o d e
§ § 5 0 2

. 4 0 7 & 5 0 2

. 4 7 3 ?

T h e C l e r k o f t h i s C o u r t w i l l s e n d c o p i e s o f t h i s o r d e r t o t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e N i n t h

D i s t r i c t , t h e S t a t e P r o s e c u t i n g A t t o r n e y , t h e D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y f o r H a r r i s C o u n t y , a n d

A p p e l l a n t

.

D A T E E N T E R E D : S e p t e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 D O N O T P U B L I S H
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7044

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FRAZER ARTHUR WHEELER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CR-92-92, CA-96-557)

Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1997

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frazer Arthur Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se. S. David Schiller, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Wheeler, Nos. CR-92-92; CA-96-557

(E.D. Va. June 24, 1996). Appellant's motion to strike the Government's informal brief is denied. 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
Verizon I My Verizon I Verizon Message Center 7/28/14 11:48 PM 

I come to speak to you today as a concerned citizen and property owner in Richmond, Virginia. 

I have already seen some of the effects of climate change in my own small property. I have observed that we 

have had more intense storms with heavier rainfall and with more frequency in the past five years than in 

previous years.A few years ago when Hurricane Irene came through Richmond, I lost the entire fence along 

one side of my property. In another storm my next door neighbor had a tree fall onto the front of the house 

which damaged windows, a porch and part of the roof .It was a traumatizing experience to go through these 

storms and see the damage they caused. I have read that having more severe storms is one of the effects of 

-~l;~ate change.Scientists have established that carbon pollution is the main contributor to climate change~ 

1

>1 power plants produce 40%of the carbon pollution in our country. Therefore it is important to set a 

\dstandard for the coal fired plants in order to prevent more serious changes in our climate in the future. 

I am also concerned about the effects of climate change on Virginia's Coast.It is important to take 

measures to cut back on carbon pollution in order to prevent increased warming, sea level rise and flooding of 

Virginia's Coast.It would be devastating to the tourist business of Virginia Beach and to the naval base in 

Norfolk if we had major flooding there .I have read that Virginia's coast is the second most vulnerable to 

flooding after the Gulf Coast. 

Lastly, I am concerned about health issues that are the consequence of carbon pollution in our 

environment. The state of Virginia has the highest rates of cases of asthma in the country .I think that if carbon 

pollution can be reduced by having limits at coal fired power plants that this will lower the number of asthma 

cases in our state and in the country. 

I fully support the E.P.A. in setting strong standards for limiting carbon pollution from coal fired power 

plants. 

Mary E. Crutchfield 

4315 Kensington Ave. 

Richmond, VA. 23221 

https://mail.verizon.com/webmail/driver?nimlet=showmessages&view=emails#maii_Emails_INBOX Page 1 of 1
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-2 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 9
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-2 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 9
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-2 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 9
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-2 Filed 11/09/20 Page 4 of 9
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-2 Filed 11/09/20 Page 5 of 9
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-2 Filed 11/09/20 Page 6 of 9
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-2 Filed 11/09/20 Page 7 of 9
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-2 Filed 11/09/20 Page 8 of 9
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-2 Filed 11/09/20 Page 9 of 9
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                             5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1000
       
<S>                                                 <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           58,459
<SECURITIES>                                     34,644
<RECEIVABLES>                                   143,359
<ALLOWANCES>                                      4,114
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                398,107
<PP&E>                                          292,110
<DEPRECIATION>                                  161,691
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  716,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           287,327
<BONDS>                                          23,042
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         17,731
<OTHER-SE>                                      318,573
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    716,207
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1,003,999
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   916,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 51,710
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,258
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  37,324 <F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                     12,889
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              24,435
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     24,435
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      1.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      1.90
<FN>
<F1>Includes Interest Income of $1,877 not reflected on this tag list.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
AFS-12-035-E November 21, 2011

Exemption No. 10391 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1156

Mr. Emmanuel Aponte

213 Cecil Avenue Spring Lake, NC 28390-2522

Dear Mr. Aponte:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated October 11, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) for an exemption from § 61.153(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to apply for an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate in order to complete his training and eventually act as a required aircrew member with a part 121 carrier.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to you.

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 6826 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that the petitioner failed to show how his situation was unique in comparison to the needs of other pilots and that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. The FAA noted that his personal interest to be able to apply for an ATP certificate before reaching his 23rd birthday is not the same as the interest of the public as a whole. Additionally, the FAA determined that compliance with this rule would ensure a high maturity level for those pilots who are permitted to operate as pilot in command in operations requiring an ATP certificate and that the minimum age requirement of 23 years would further the cause of safety.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed denial of exemption;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 6826 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Adm inistrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny your petition for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.153(a).

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service

Enclosure
#### JACOBS v. STATE.

No. 22528.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 2, 1943.

Eugene Talbert and Nat Gentry, Jr., both of Tyler, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder without malice, and by the jury assessed a penalty of two years in the penitentiary.

There is no statement of facts found in the record. In such an absence we are unable to say whether there was error in the trial court’s refusal to charge on certain omissions complained of by appellant in his objections to the court’s charge. As we are able to view such charge, the same appears to be a proper charge under the allegations in the indictment, and without a statement of facts we can go no further.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### TINSLEY v. STATE.

No. 26018.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Upon his plea of guilty before the court, appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area, with punishment assessed at a fine of $250 and 365 days in jail.

The record contains neither a statement of facts nor bills of exception. Nothing is presented for consideration.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
CERTIFICATION 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 quarterly report of Cytation Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,Kevin J. High, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

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

     (2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
Exhibit 15.4













CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



Randgold Resources Limited



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statements filed on Form S-8 (File No. 333-156150; No. 333-145013 and No. 333-103222) of Randgold Resources
Limited of our report dated March 27, 2015, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Kibali (Jersey) Limited and its
subsidiaries which appear in this Form 20-F of Randgold Resources Limited.





/s/ BDO LLP





BDO LLP

Registered Auditor

London

United Kingdom



March 30, 2015



BDO LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England
and Wales (with registered number OC305127).
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5432 

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

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 WOMEN’S 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 5432 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Footwear with uppers of 

textile material other than 

vegetable fibers and having 

outer soles with textile materials having the greatest 

surface area in contact 

with the ground, but not 

taken into account under 

the terms of additional 

U.S. note 5 to chapter 64 

of the HTSUS, other than 

house slippers, the forgoing 

for women (provided for in 

subheading 6404.19.37) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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
[4910-I3-PI

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

,-1/&

.~-.

-II (.,

~"

~ f-; ;-CjL-

~"

EMB-135ER, -135KE. -135KL. and -135LR AUpIanes. and Model EMB-145, -145ER (pI ,s-\ '0

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) M

14 CFR Part 39

lDocket~O. FAA-2008-1079; Directol":llte Identifier 2008-NM-116-AD; Amendme

3J-If·rAD .'1'- ;]D I0 - 11,0- 0I

RIN Z120-AA64

-145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP Ai']llanes

(DOl).

ACTION: Final rule.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation

-T

""CF.'"~

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for the ""'t

I '7/ IYVllo

products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness """'''''''MO.*

informal ion (MeAl) issued by an 'ilWOrthin,,! authority of Mothe, country to identif 77'1;,':;;, '"

and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation JrOdUct.The earlier MeAl. Brazilian ""/ / f (i)

I """'_ •• ,,""'-

AiI"'Northincss Directive 2007-08-02, effective September 27, 2007. describes the uns e - (0 I

condition as;

Fuel system reassessment., pcrfonned according to RBHA-E88/SF AR-88

(Regulamento Brasileiro de Homologacao Aeronautica 88/Special Federal

Aviation Regulation No. 88), requires the inclusion of new maintenance

tasks in the Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)

and in the Fuel System Limitations (FSL), necessary to preclude ignition

sources in the fuel system .•••

FAA Form 1:160-14.1 (6-S9) OFFICIAL FILE COPY