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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5506 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5506

          To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Sedaxane.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Sedaxane.

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

SECTION 1. SEDAXANE.

    (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        N-[2-[1,1'-         Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          bicyclopropyl]-2-                                                 12/31/2015
                          ylphenyl]-3-
                          (difluoromethyl)-
                          1-methyl-1H-
                          pyrazole-4-
                          carboxamide
                          (Sedaxane) (CAS
                          No. 874967-67-6)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          2933.19.23)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
											   EXHIBIT 11 
			    THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES 
			  STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER-SHARE EARNINGS 
			      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER-SHARE DATA) 

			      CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE 
 
 
							  THREE MONTHS                SIX MONTHS 
							 ENDED JUNE 30,              ENDED JUNE 30, 
						   -------------------------   -------------------------
						       1997         1996           1997         1996 
						   -----------   -----------   -----------   -----------
<S>                                                <C>           <C>           <C>           <C> 
Net earnings.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  $   25,630   $   30,387    $   31,152    $   35,876 
Add interest on Convertible Debt, net of tax            2,071        2,083         4,138         4,165 
						   -----------   -----------   -----------   ----------- 
Net earnings applicable to common 
    stock and equivalents outstanding  .  .  .  .  $   27,701   $   32,470    $   35,290    $   40,041 
						   ===========   ===========   ===========   =========== 
 
Weighted average number of common shares 
   outstanding .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     409,923      409,923       409,923       409,923 
Weighted average number of common shares 
    issuable upon conversion of Convertible Debt.      72,112       72,112        72,112        72,112
Dilutive effect of stock options after application 
    of treasury stock method  .  .  .  .  .  .  .         682          298           341           149
						   -----------   -----------   -----------   ----------- 
Weighted average number of common shares 
   and equivalents outstanding.  .  .  .  .  .  .     482,717      482,333       482,376       482,184 
						   ===========   ===========   ===========   =========== 
 
Net earnings per common share and equivalents 
    (Primary and Fully Diluted)  .  .  .  .  .  .        $.06         $.07          $.07          $.08 
							 =====        =====         =====         ===== 
 
 
 
						      Tab 2 
</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 7, 2017

p0227 

# Order

Clerk March 7, 2017

153645(24)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153645

COA: 330953

Wayne CC: 14

- 009993

- FH

GEJUAN MARTEZ PAUL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September

27, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does n ot appear that the order

was entered erroneously.
Exhibit 5

Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-5 Filed 01/29/21 Page 1 of 2
Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 47-5 Filed 01/29/21 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6113

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CALVIN LAMONT JACKSON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (7:06-cr-00712-GRA-1; 7:10-cv-70300-GRA)

Submitted: June 2, 2011 Decided: June 14, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Lamont Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Calvin Lamont Jackson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Jackson has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
#### COOPER v. BERRY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 30, 1954.

Earl Osborne, Benton, for appellant.

M. C. Anderson, Wickliffe, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from the Ballard Circuit Court, Elvis J. .Stahr, Judge, -on a. directed verdict in an action' to recover "$228.54 on a charge against the defendant, who-operated a service • station, for negligence in failing to grease the transmission of the plaintiff’s truck.-

We think the trial court properly sustained a demurrer ■ to the petition' as amended, because the allegations were not sufficient to show that the failure to grease the transmission was the proximate cause of the damage.

The motion for an appeal is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.
#### Joe Chester MELTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 26150.

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.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The offense is murder under Art. 802c, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.; the punishment, 2 years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed his affidavit to withdraw the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed upon appellant’s motion.

Opinion approved by the Court
Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of these documents are available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by February 22, 2000. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.

*Subject:*                     Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143)                

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     3.                

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-2647 Filed 2-4-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
#32961275_v2 

 SERVICE LIST

robert.wirick@aa.com 

howard.kass@aa.com 

sharon.pasley@fedex.com

sllunsford@fedex.com

dan.weiss@united.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

chris.walker@delta.com 

jyoung@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit Airlines) 

dkirstein@yklaw.com (Counsel for Spirit Airlines) 

marshall.sinick@ssd.com (Counsel for Alaska Airlines) 

agoerlich@ggh-airlaw.com(Counsel for Allegiant) 

rpommer@atlasair.com

kevin.montgomery@polaraircargo.com 

peter.beckett@polaraircargo.com 

anita.mosner@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) 

jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com (Counsel for United Parcel Service) 

thomas.ting@suncountry.com 

joan.canny@amerijet.com

jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com (Counsel for Amerijet) 

jhill@cooley.com (Counsel for Hawaiian and JetBlue) 

perkmann@cooley.com (Counsel for Hawaiian and JetBlue) 

matwood@cozen.com (Counsel for Kalitta Air) 

john.s.duncan@faa.gov 

cristinasa@state.gov
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Davis, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.), rendered July 2, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon our review of the record we conclude as there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant if the gun had not been admitted into evidence. Accordingly, any error surrounding its admission was harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242).

The defendant’s claim that he was denied the right to testify before the Grand Jury is without merit since he did not serve written notice of his intent to testify upon the District *554Attorney *(see,*CPL 190.50 [5] [a]; *People v Harris,*150 AD2d 723; *People v Morales,*163 AD2d 332). Similarly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment upon the ground that he was denied the right to testify before the Grand Jury was properly denied inasmuch as he not only failed to make such a request but also delayed in making the motion to dismiss until several weeks after his arraignment *(see,*CPL 190.50 [5] [c]; 210.45 [1]; *People v Morales, supra).*Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TYRONE WALLACE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

R. OLSON, RJD Appeals Coordinator; et 

al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-55660 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-01917-AJB-NLS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Tyrone Wallace, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional 

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 

Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 17-55660 

§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Wallace’s access-to-courts claim 

because Wallace failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered an actual 

injury caused by defendants’ alleged improper screening of his grievances. See

Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 416 (2002) (the complaint must describe 

the underlying claim “well enough to apply the ‘nonfrivolous test’” and “to show 

that the ‘arguable’ nature of the underlying claim is more than a hope”).

The district court properly dismissed Wallace’s claims of deliberate 

indifference to his safety and serious medical needs because Wallace failed to 

allege facts sufficient to show that either Dr. Dalglish or Dr. Glynn was aware of 

any risk to his safety or serious medical needs by failing to grant him a single cell 

chrono. See Foster v. Runnels, 554 F.3d 807, 814 (9th Cir. 2009) (“To establish a 

prison official’s deliberate indifference, an inmate must show that the official was 

aware of a risk to the inmate’s health or safety and that the official deliberately 

disregarded the risk.”). 

AFFIRMED.
<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-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            40944
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    197390
<ALLOWANCES>                                       7406
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 378571
<PP&E>                                           315083
<DEPRECIATION>                                   170469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   722309
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            274199
<BONDS>                                           22091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                          17731
<OTHER-SE>                                       333721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     722309
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 293957
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    266051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  417
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   12420<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                       4807
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                7613
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                       7613
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.59
<FN>
<F1>Includes General and Administrative Expenses of (16272) and interest income
of 1203 not reflected on this tag list.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1   Rival Technologies, Inc.  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of Rival Technologies, Inc. certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  • the annual report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  • the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:  April 15, 2010/s/ Douglas B. Thomas
Douglas B. Thomas
Chief Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (a)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD THEN
ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (b) FORM 10-QSB FOR
THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         311,151
<SECURITIES>                                    49,183
<RECEIVABLES>                                  249,851
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                    135,083
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,166,828
<PP&E>                                       3,571,441
<DEPRECIATION>                                 272,533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             155,518,129
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,916,719
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,472,247
<OTHER-SE>                                (43,907,324)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               155,518,129
<SALES>                                        175,378
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,378
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,200,517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             750,425
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (21,994,682)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (21,994,682)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (21,994,682)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.71)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.2
                                                   Pittway Corporation
                                                   March 31, 1999
                                                   Form 10-Q


                                AMENDMENT
                                   TO
                          EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

          AMENDMENT made as of March 18, 1999 between Pittway 
Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Edward J. 
Schwartz ("Executive").

          The Company and Executive are parties to an Employment 
Agreement made as of January 1, 1998 (the "Existing Employment 
Agreement").  The Company and Executive desire to amend the Existing 
Employment Agreement.

          Accordingly, the Company (pursuant to authorization from the 
Compensation Committee of its Board of Directors) and Executive agree as 
follows:

          Clause (iii) of paragraph 3(g) of the Existing Employment 
Agreement is amended and restated to read as follows:

    (iii) participation in the Pittway Corporation Supplemental 
Executive Retirement Plan effective January 1, 1996 (the "SERP"), a copy 
of which, as currently in effect, is attached hereto as Exhibit A, with 
the beginning date for accrual of a benefit being January 1, 1995 and 
with the following modifications (A) in the event Executive becomes 
entitled, and so long as Executive remains entitled, to a monthly 
benefit under section 2.4 of the SERP on account of accruals under 
section 2.2 thereof, the amount of such monthly benefit (if paid on a 
life annuity basis commencing upon Executive's attainment of age 65 
years) shall be increased by an amount equal to the additional monthly 
benefit that would have been payable on such basis pursuant to the 
Pittway Corporation Retirement Plan had Executive commenced 
participation in that Plan on October 1, 1979 rather than on July 1, 
1987 and had his total cash compensation from Standard Shares, Inc. for 
any plan year or fraction under that Plan occurring between such dates 
been treated for purposes of that Plan as having been earned from the 
Company during such plan year or fraction, and the aggregate benefit 
shall be payable as provided in section 2.4 of the SERP, and (B) if 
Executive dies prior to his supplemental retirement benefit commencement 
date under the SERP and has a spouse (as defined in section 2.7 thereof) 
at the time of his death, such spouse shall be entitled to an additional 
monthly benefit pursuant to section 2.6 of the SERP calculated based on 
such aggregate benefit (rather than on the monthly benefit on account of 
accruals under section 2.2 of the SERP).

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this 
Amendment as of the date first written above.

                                         PITTWAY CORPORATION
                                         By  /s/ King Harris		
                                         Its  President			

                                          /s/ Edward J. Schwartz		
                                         EDWARD J. SCHWARTZ