alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         180,890
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  146,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (3,412)
<INVENTORY>                                    183,016
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               652,308
<PP&E>                                         257,270
<DEPRECIATION>                                (137,572)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 811,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          292,092
<BONDS>                                        147,042
<COMMON>                                        47,043
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     367,887
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   811,270
<SALES>                                        628,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               628,549
<CGS>                                          565,775
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  565,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,421
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,956
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,353
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,295
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,058
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,602
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59
        







</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Kelsey and McClanahan 

Argued by teleconference 

LATOYA R. GREEN 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 

v. Record No. 2774-04-4 BY JUDGE D. ARTHUR KELSEY 

JULY 19, 2005 

FAIRFAX COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

 OF FAMILY SERVICES 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY 

Michael P. McWeeny, Judge 

 Mark Bodner for appellant. 

 Dennis R. Bates, Senior Assistant County Attorney (David P. 

Bobzien, County Attorney; Peter D. Andreoli, Jr., Deputy County 

Attorney; Sarah W. Townes, Assistant County Attorney, on brief), 

for appellee. 

 Edward V. O’Connor, Jr., Guardian ad litem for minor child. 

 Latoya R. Green appeals the decision of the trial court denying her motion to vacate an 

order terminating her residual parental rights. No written motion to vacate, however, appears in 

the trial court record. Nor does any transcript or statement of facts record an oral motion being 

made. The trial court record, therefore, discloses nothing about the grounds for the motion to 

vacate, the testimony (if any) offered in support of it, or the trial court’s reasoning for denying it. 

 Suffice it to say, we can hardly begin the task of appellate review with so little 

knowledge of what it is we are reviewing. “When the appellant fails to ensure that the record 

contains transcripts or a written statement of facts necessary to permit resolution of appellate 

issues, any assignments of error affected by such omission shall not be considered.” Rule 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
- 2 - 

5A:8(b). “An appellate court must dispose of the case upon the record and cannot base its 

decision upon appellant’s petition or brief, or statements of counsel in open court.” Jackson v. 

Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 218, 224, 604 S.E.2d 122, 125 (2004) (quoting Smith v. 

Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993)). “We may act only upon facts 

contained in the record.” Id. To be sure, the “importance of the record is obvious, for it is 

axiomatic that an appellate court’s review of the case is limited to the record on appeal.” Turner 

v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986).1

 There being no record of the motion to vacate or the basis for the trial court’s denial of it, 

we affirm based upon the presumption of correctness that attends every lower court decision 

reviewed on appeal. 

 Affirmed.

 

1

 Green asks us to exempt her case from these default principles. We decline to do so. 

Few principles of appellate review are better known or more consistently applied by Virginia 

courts. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 262 Va. 661, 669, 553 S.E.2d 760, 764 (2001); 

Justis v. Young, 202 Va. 631, 632, 119 S.E.2d 255, 256-57 (1961); Riddick v. Commonwealth, 

135 Va. 724, 726, 115 S.E. 523, 524 (1923); Mattaponi Indian Tribe v. Marine Res. Comm’n, 45 

Va. App. 208, 214 n.4, 609 S.E.2d 619, 622 n.4 (2005); Anderson v. Commonwealth, 13 

Va. App. 506, 508-09, 413 S.E.2d 75, 76-77 (1992); Jenkins v. Winchester Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 

12 Va. App. 1178, 1185, 409 S.E.2d 16, 20 (1991).
Docket Number FAA-2014-0446
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACOACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL

INC., EMC CORPORATION, VMWARE,

INC.

Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00486-ADA

ORDER SETTING Discovery DISCOVERY HEARING IN PERSON

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

DISCOVERY HEARING IN PERSON, in U.S. Magistrate Court, Courtroom No. 2, Third Floor, 800

Franklin Avenue, Waco,aco Texas, on February 17, 2023 at 11:00 AM.

16th day of February, 2023.

Derek T. Gilliland

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 375 Filed 02/16/23 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACOACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC.,

ZTE (TX), INC.

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00487-ADA

ORDER SETTING MARKMAN HEARING

set

Zoom

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

MARKMAN HEARING by Zoom on March 02, 2022 at 02:00 PM.

17th day of February, 2022.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 177 Filed 02/17/22 Page 1 of 1
DOCKET COPY 

Pro Hac Vice Receipt Copy 

Court Name: TEXAS WESTERN 

Division: 5 

Receipt Number: 500054681 

Cashier ID: dgarci 

Transaction Date: 06/24/2020 

Payer Name: RODRIGO CANTU PRO HAC VICE 

For: TOR EKELANO 

Case/Party: DTXW-5-20-LB-000000-001 

Amount: $100.00 

PAPER CHECK 

Check/Money Order Hum: 120 Amt Tendered: $100.00 

Total Due: $100.00 

Total Tendered: $100.00 

Change Amt: $0.00 

PRO HAC VICE FOR TOR EKELAND. 5:20CV-745. MELODY JOY CANTU AND 

DR. R0DRIGO CANTU V. DR. SANDRA GUERRA AND DIGITAL FORENSICS 

CORPORATION. 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 2-2 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2665 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2665

          To ensure secure gun storage and gun safety devices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2013

 Ms. Jackson Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To ensure secure gun storage and gun safety devices.

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

SECTION 1. GUN STORAGE AND SAFETY DEVICES FOR ALL FIREARMS.

    (a) Secure Gun Storage or Safety Devices by Federal Firearms 
Licensees.--Section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
to read as follows:
    ``(z) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed 
manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, transfer, or deliver any 
firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed 
manufacturer, or licensed dealer) unless the transferee is provided 
with a secure gun storage or safety device.''.
    (b) Penalties.--Section 924(p) of such title is amended to read as 
follows:
    ``(p) The Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for 
hearing, suspend or revoke any license issued under this chapter or may 
subject the licensee to a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 if the 
holder of such license has knowingly violated section 922(z). The 
actions of the Attorney General under this subsection may be reviewed 
only as provided in section 923(f).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall be 
effective 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### City Clerk Page 1 of 1 

### Contents. Search

- 

### NoFrames Chaoter 15.40 FIREPLACES _



### Homi. Henderson Municipal Section 15.40.010 Fireplaces in new Code construction and new fireplaces a
. in existing construction. Preface 6.ver.mesl 

### Effectiveupon publication ofthe ordinance CHARTER 

### codified in this section, no fireplace shall be constructed in 

### any 

### residential dwelling unit In Title 1 GENERAL Henderson unless it is one ofthe 

### following: qutr.ac 

# —: PROVISIONS A. A fireplace equipped with gas logs with a nationally recognized listing approved ADMINISTRATION by thebuilding official; ____

AND PERSONNEL B. A dedicated natural 

### gas burning factory-built fireplace with a nationally _______

Title 3 (RESERVED) recognized llstlng approved by the building official; Title4 BUSINESS C. A dedicated woodburnlng factory-built REGULATIONSPND fireplace that conforms to the Phase II UCENSES Enronmantal Protlon Agency Standards .e 

### for Wood Heaters, as presented by NSPS, TitleS HEALTH 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart M.A (emitting less SANiTATION than 7.5 

### grams perhourofparticularmatter), as verified by a nationally recognized listing Title6CIVIL approvedbythe building official; SERVICE 0. A masonry fireplace that complies with Section 3102.7 of the Uniform Building TItle7 ANIMALS Code, 1994 editIon; or Title 8 PUBUC PEACE E. A decorative electrical appliance with AND SAFETY a nationally recognized listing approved by the buildingofficial. (Ord. 1697 

### § 1, 1996) Title9 (RESERVED) Title 10VEHICLES ANDTRAFFIC

V Title it STREETS AND SIDEWALKS Title 12 (RESERVED) ml. 13 UTILITIES TItle 14 (RESERVED) Title 15 BUILDINGS

‘ AND CONSTRUCTION Title 16TRAILER PARKS Title 17 TRAVEL TRAil ER PLRIC 

### _j


### 911912002
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-50689 USDC No. A-93-CV-310

STEPHEN C. KUHNS, Individually and as next friend of Jesse Kuhns, et al., Plaintiffs, STEPHEN C. KUHNS, Individually and as next friend of Jesse Kuhns, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TEAM BANK, doing business as Bank One, Defendant-Appellee, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for Bank of the Hills Austin, Intervenor-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - - February 4, 1997 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that Stephen C. Kuhns’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED, because his appealNo. 96-50689 -2- lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED.
See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kuhns’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, and he failed to file a notice of appeal relative to the district court’s sanction order. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Kuhns’s motions for appointment of counsel and preparation of the trial transcript at government expense are DENIED. We caution Kuhns that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions Kuhns is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BISMARCK M. BRITO,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-881

[June 11, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Rosemarie Scher, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018CF010970A.

Michael P. Mirer, Miami, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR

WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL FROM CASE PAGE 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. 

LTD. AND SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00507-ADA 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL FROM CASE

Before the Court is Plaintiff Neonode Smartphone LLC’s Unopposed Motion for Withdrawal 

of Counsel from Case. Having considered the Motion, the Court has determined it should be 

GRANTED. 

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the appearance of the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol 

Shapiro LLP as counsel of record for Plaintiff Neonode Smartphone LLC is hereby TERMINATED 

for all purposes in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this the ______ day of ______________, 2022. 

_____________________________ 

Honorable Alan D. Albright 

United States District Judge

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 61-1 Filed 06/16/22 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE>
                                                                                                               EXHIBIT 12
                                          SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
                                 COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                                Dollars in Millions


<CAPTION>
                                       SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                           JUNE 30,                            YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                    -----------------------  -------------------------------------------------------------
                                          1999       1998        1998        1997        1996         1995         1994
                                    -----------------------   ------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                   <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>

Income Before Income Taxes and
Extraordinary Loss                    $   1,450   $  1,278    $  2,410   $    1,888   $   2,168    $   1,688   $    1,586
     Add:Interest Expense                   189        182         374          343         327          340          358
         1/3 Rental Expense                  23         21          45           41          33           26           25
                                      ----------  ---------   ---------  -----------  ----------   ----------  -----------

     Adjusted Earnings                $  1,662    $  1,481    $  2,829   $    2,272   $   2,528    $   2,054   $    1,969
                                      ==========  =========   =========  ===========  ==========   ==========  ===========

Total Interest Charges                $     199   $    194    $    392   $      370   $     348    $     340   $      358
1/3 Rental Expense                           23         21          45           41          33           26           25
                                      ----------  ---------   ---------  -----------  ----------   ----------  -----------

     Adjusted Fixed Charges           $     222   $    215    $    437   $      411   $     381    $     366   $      383
                                      ==========  =========   =========  ===========  ==========   ==========  ===========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges         7.49       6.89        6.47         5.53        6.64         5.61         5.14


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Patrick J. Moore, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)             TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Patrick J. Moore                  |   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Patrick J. Moore                      |   |   |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |
| May 5, 2006                           |   |   |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,has been provided to Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. and will beretained by Smurfit-Stone Container Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from Stone Container
Corporation and Subsidiaries' September 30, 1996 Consolidated Balance Sheet and
Consolidated Operations and Retained Earnings and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             210
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      630
<ALLOWANCES>                                        24
<INVENTORY>                                        721
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1679
<PP&E>                                            4819
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    6425
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              824
<BONDS>                                           3953
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        115
<COMMON>                                           953
<OTHER-SE>                                       (171)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      6425
<SALES>                                           3899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3899
<CGS>                                             3022
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (65)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 308
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (60)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (22)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (37)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (3)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (40)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.46)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1831

FRANKLIN TEDONGOH FORLEMU, Petitioner,
versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A97-187-124) Submitted: April 7, 2006 Decided: May 3, 2006 Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bokwe G. Mofor, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Senior Litigation Assistant, Janet A. Bradley, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Franklin Tedongoh Forlemu, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. In his petition for review, Forlemu challengesthe determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Forlemu fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks. Additionally, we uphold the denial of Forlemu’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft , 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Forlemu fails to show that- 3 - he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. We also find that substantial evidence supports the finding that Forlemu fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2005). We find that Forlemu failed to make the requisite showing before the immigration court. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED