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

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5532 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain woven fabrics of synthetic 

filament yarn. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain woven fabrics 

of synthetic filament yarn. 

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 WOVEN FABRICS OF SYNTHETIC FILA4 MENT YARN. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5532 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Woven fabrics of synthetic 

filament yarn, including 

woven fabrics obtained 

from materials of heading 

5404: Other woven fabrics: 

Dyed: Other (provided for 

in subheading 5407.92.20) 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2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 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 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
NRS 17.115(4) and NRCP 68, the district court must analyze the factors 

established in Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 588-89, 668 P.2d 268, 274 

(1983). Similarly, when determining the reasonable value of an attorney's 

services in a motion for attorney fees, the district court must analyze the 

factors established in Brunzell v. Golden Gate National Bank, 85 Nev. 345, 

349-50, 455 P.2d 31, 33 (1969). The district court must then provide 

sufficient reasoning and findings concerning those factors in its order. 

Shuette, 121 Nev. at 865, 124 P.3d at 549. But if the district court's order 

fails to provide such reasoning and findings, we will nevertheless defer to 

the district court's discretion in awarding attorney fees if the record 

indicates that the district court properly evaluated the Beattie and 

Brunzell factors. Wynn v. Smith, 117 Nev. 6, 13, 16 P.3d 424, 428-29 

(2001). 

In this case, appellant argues that attorney fees were 

improperly awarded because appellant's former counsel controlled the 

case, did not inform appellant about the case, took actions without 

appellant's knowledge or permission, and made mistakes during the case. 

Appellant's arguments, however, are not relevant to the attorney fees 

determination here. See Beattie, 99 Nev. at 588-89, 668 P.2d at 274; 

Brunzell, 85 Nev. at 349-50, 455 P.2d at 33; see also Lange v. Hickman, 92 

Nev. 41, 43, 544 P.2d 1208, 1209 (1976) (holding that notice to an attorney 

is notice to the client, and if the attorney neglects the client's case, the 

client's recourse is an action against the attorney). 

Here, although the district court failed to set forth any 

findings of fact or its reasoning in the order awarding attorney fees, 

respondent's motion for attorney fees contains a discussion of the Beattie 

and Brunzell factors and a detailed breakdown of incurred attorney fees, 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
J. 

and the district court's order indicates that a hearing was held on the 

contested attorney fees motion. Thus, although written findings 

supporting an attorney fees award are preferred for appellate review, 

Wynn, 117 Nev. at 13, 16 P.3d at 428-29, the record indicates that the 

district court evaluated the Beattie and Brunzell factors and awarded 

respondent approximately half of its requested fees as reasonable attorney 

fees. In this case, we will defer to the district court's discretion in 

awarding attorney fees. Id. Accordingly, having considered appellant's 

arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court 

did not abuse its discretion. We therefore 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Douglas 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge 

Adrian Niculescu 

Littler Mendelson/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5634 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5634

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rolling backpacks without a 
                     removable backpack or daypack.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on certain rolling backpacks without a 
                     removable backpack or daypack.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ROLLING BACKPACKS WITHOUT A REMOVABLE BACKPACK OR 
              DAYPACK.

    (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        Backpacks of        Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          manmade fibers,                                                   12/31/2015
                          valued over $30
                          each, each having
                          wheels, a
                          telescoping
                          handle and
                          stowable shoulder
                          straps, with a
                          capacity not
                          exceeding 85
                          liters, not
                          having a
                          removable
                          separate backpack
                          or daypack
                          attached by
                          zipper or other
                          means (provided
                          for in subheading
                          4202.92.30)......

    (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>
```
Exhibit 32(1)



CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report of 7-Eleven, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, James W. Keyes, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to my 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/ James W. KeyesJames W. KeyesPresident and Chief Executive Officer7-Eleven, Inc.
#### CITY OF HOUSTON v. KUNZE et al.

No. 15432.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas Fort Worth.

March 6, 1953.

See also, 258 S.W.2d 226.

Will Sears, City Atty., R. H. Burks, Joseph C. Johnson, and Jack W. Mills, Assts. City Atty., all of Houston, for appellant.

Knipp & Broady, of Houston, for appel-lee E. Huber.

BOYD, Justice.

This is an application by the City of Houston for a temporary injunction to enjoin the respondent E. Huber from prosecuting a suit in trespass to try title in the 127th District Court of Harris County as against the City of Houston and others until this Court has finally determined an appeal from an order of the County Court at Law of Harris County denying a temporary injunction, with an alternative prayer for writ of prohibition directed to the Judge of said District Court.

It is alleged that the City of Houston, on May 19, 1949, instituted condemnation proceedings' to acquire part of the land involved in the trespass to try title suit; commissioners were appointed and on August 12, 1949, filed their award; some of the defendants, other than respondent, filed objections to the award and the cause is now pending in the County Court at Law; the city deposited the requisite amount and went into possession of the premises. The suit has not been tried in the County Court at Law.

The city, all the defendants in the condemnation suit other than respondent, and others are defendants in the District Court suit.

The city filed an application in the County Court at Law for a temporary injunction to enjoin respondent from prosecuting the District Court suit as against the city during the pendency of the condemnation proceedings. The application was denied, and the city perfected its appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals for the First District, and upon transfer of causes the Supreme Court transferred this cause to this Court. The appeal from the order of the County Court at Law denying the injunction is set for submission in this Court on April 9. The issue now before us for determination is whether we should enjoin respondent from prosecuting the District Court suit as against the city until the appeal from the order of the County' Court at Law denying the temporary injunction is disposed of.

We do not discuss the contention of respondent that he was not served with any process, had no notice of the hearing before the Commissioners, did not appear, was not represented by counsel, and therefore was not and is not a party to the condemnation suit, all of which, was sworn to by respondent in his answer to the application for temporary injunction in this court, since we believe that our appellate jurisdiction is not involved in this proceeding; and the application is denied for that reason on au-*226tliority of the following cases: Texas Electric & Ice Co. v. City of Vernon, Tex.Civ.App., 254 S.W. 503; Taylor v. American Trust & Savings Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 265 S.W. 727; City of Farmersville v. Texas-Louisiana Power Co., Tex.Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 271; Ellis v. Harrison, 24 Tex.Civ.App. 13, 56 S.W. 592; Tipton v. Railway Postal Clerks’ Inv. Ass’n, Tex.Civ.App., 170 S.W. 113.
|                                                                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                 
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                                             
|View History:                                                                                                    
|                                                                                                                 
|Kentucky Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                 
|Kentucky Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                 

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

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

WILLIAM BARLOW,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

RANDY RUST, RUST GAME PLACE, 

LLC,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

5-20-CV-00662-RBF

ORDER

Before the Court is the status of the above-referenced case, which was assigned for 

disposition on July 13, 2020 following the parties’ consent. See Dkt. Nos. 6, 7 & 8. The Court is 

in receipt of the parties’ August 13, 2020 advisory, which informs the Court that they have 

reached a settlement of all claims. See Dkt. No. 10. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that the parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal on or before September 15, 2020. Should the 

parties require additional time to finalize their settlement agreement, they should inform the 

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

SIGNED this 14th day of August, 2020.

RICHARD B. FARRER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          99,842
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  193,197
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,642
<INVENTORY>                                    111,914
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               522,680
<PP&E>                                       3,486,425
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,631,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,664,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          763,787
<BONDS>                                      1,676,899
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,643)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,664,721
<SALES>                                      2,112,571
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,137,344
<CGS>                                        1,546,132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,546,132
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               560,443
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,877
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (10,959)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,836
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,836
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      Exhibit 11


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


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended                 Nine Months Ended
                                                          September 30,                     September 30,
                                                   -----------------------------    --------------------------------
                                                       2000            1999             2000              1999
                                                   -------------   -------------    --------------   ---------------
<S>                                                <C>             <C>              <C>              <C>
Net income                                         $  4,186,095    $  3,684,808     $  12,063,312    $   10,700,861
Less: preferred dividends                                20,540          16,319            62,067            49,269
                                                   -------------   -------------    --------------   ---------------
Net income available for common shareholders
  and adjusted for diluted computation             $  4,165,555    $  3,668,489     $  12,001,245    $   10,651,592
                                                   =============   =============    ==============   ===============



Weighted average common shares outstanding            8,265,373       8,439,008         8,307,064         8,514,735
Add dilutive effect of:
    Stock options                                        65,395         111,388                 -           129,703
    Convertible preferred stock                         238,961         241,883           240,524           242,906
                                                   -------------   -------------    --------------   ---------------
Adjusted for assumed diluted computation              8,569,729       8,792,279         8,547,588         8,887,344
                                                   =============   =============    ==============   ===============


Basic earnings per share                                  $0.50           $0.43             $1.44             $1.25
                                                   =============   =============    ==============   ===============
Diluted earnings per share                                $0.49           $0.42             $1.40             $1.20
                                                   =============   =============    ==============   ===============
</TABLE>


                                       31
#### DRENNON v. STATE.

No. 25928.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1952.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Upon a plea of guilty, appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully carrying a pistol and assessed a fine of $100 as punishment therefor.

*223The record is before us with neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions. Nothing being presented for review and all proceedings appearing regular, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q DATED
SEPTEMBER 24, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<CIK> 0000094673
<NAME> STORAGE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000


<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-24-1999
<CASH>                            236,314
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     714,825 <F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                       329,435
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,397,096
<PP&E>                            333,003 <F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,904,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             949,550
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           10,004
<OTHER-SE>                        923,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,904,339
<SALES>                         1,224,928
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,745,635
<CGS>                             679,381
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,021,455
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  212,325
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 15,397
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (76,012)
<INCOME-TAX>                      (27,300)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (48,712)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (48,712)
<EPS-BASIC>                       (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.49)

<FN>
<F1> Asset values for the interim period represent net amounts.
</FN>


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DEL RIO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

(1) HELARIO RAMOS-MATA

§

§

§

§

§

CRIMINAL NO:

DR:20-CR-00626(1)-AM

ORDER RESETTING SENTENCING

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

SENTENCING in Courtroom 1, on the 2nd floor, U.S. Courthouse, 111 E. Broadway, Del Rio,

TX, on Thursday, August 05, 2021 at 02:00 PM.

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

counsel for defendant, the United States Attorney, United States Pretrial Services and the United

States Probation Office. Counsel for the defendant shall notify the defendant of this setting and,

if the defendant is on bond, advise the defendant to be present at this proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of September, 2020.

______________________________

ALIA MOSES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:20-cr-00626-AM Document 25 Filed 09/16/20 Page 1 of 1