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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               3
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      159
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         17
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   239
<PP&E>                                           4,439
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              535
<BONDS>                                          1,353
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,873
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   526
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    208
<INCOME-TAX>                                        67
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                141
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       141
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>Not separately identified in the Consolidated Financial Statements or
accompanying notes thereto.
</FN>


</TABLE>
**UNPUBLISHED** UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT **No. 07-6752**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM HAMILTON, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:00-cr-00263-SB-7; 9:04-cv-01736-SB) Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 20, 2007 Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Hamilton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: William Hamilton, Jr., seeks to appeal a district court order disposing of several motions, denying most of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) claims and appointing counsel for the limited purpose of preparing for a hearing on the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform Hamilton of a plea agreement. Thus, the case remains open in the district court. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). The order Hamilton seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny Hamilton’s motions to overrule the district court’s decision and to appoint counsel. 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

GOOGLE LLC

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00572-ADA

ORDER SETTING MARKMAN HEARING BY ZOOM

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

MARKMAN HEARING BY ZOOM on Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 09:00 AM. Counsel

will receive an email with the zoom link at a later date.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of March, 2021.

______________________________

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 39 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, James M. Papada, III, Chief Executive Officer of Technitrol, Inc., certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30,
      2005 (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

(2)   information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Technitrol, Inc.


Dated: November 9, 2005                          /s/ James M. Papada, III
       ----------------                          ------------------------
                                                 James M. Papada, III

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Technitrol, Inc., and will be
retained by Technitrol, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of
the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.
#### MARTIN v. STATE.

No. 23795.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1947.

No appearance for appellant

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor in a dry area in Lamar County, Texas; punishment assessed at a fine of $100 and six months in jail.

The proceedings appear regular. The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception; in such condition nothing is presented for review.

. The judgment is affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR
. R. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51303 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. LUIS VERGARA-TORRES Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:07-CR-1271 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Luis Vergara-Torres raises arguments that are foreclosed by Al mendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), whic h held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 2, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-51303

2 The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICERPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I,
James M. Papada, III, Chief Executive Officer of Technitrol, Inc., certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1)
the
 quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 26, 2008
 (the Periodic Report) which this statement accompanies fully complies with
 the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and(2)
information
 contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
 the financial condition and results of operations of Technitrol, Inc.  Dated:
November 3, 2008
/s/ James M. Papada, IIIJames M. Papada, III A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Technitrol, Inc., and will be
retained by Technitrol, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request. This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date
of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained
in such filing.
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2775 

AN ACT 

To condition the provision of premium and cost-sharing subsidies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act upon a certification that a program to verify household income and other qualifications for such subsidies 

is operational, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2775 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Subsidies Without 

3 Verification Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CONDITIONING PROVISION OF ACA PREMIUM AND 

5 COST-SHARING SUBSIDIES UPON CERTIFI6 CATION THAT A PROGRAM TO VERIFY 

7 HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND OTHER QUALI8 FICATIONS FOR THOSE SUBSIDIES IS OPER9 ATIONAL. 

10 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no pre11 mium tax credits shall be allowed under section 36B of 

12 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and no reductions in 

13 cost-sharing shall be allowed under section 1402 of the 

14 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 

15 18071) before the date that the Inspector General of the 

16 Department of Health and Human Services certifies to the 

17 Congress that there is in place a program that successfully 

18 and consistently verifies, consistent with section 1411 of 

19 such Act (42 U.S.C. 18081), the household income and 

20 coverage requirements of individuals applying for such 
3 

•HR 2775 EH

1 credits and cost-sharing reductions prior to making the 

2 benefits available. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 12, 

2013. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2775 

AN ACT 

To condition the provision of premium and costand for other purposes. qualifications for such subsidies is operational, a program to verify household income and other and Affordable Care Act upon a certification that sharing subsidies under the Patient Protection
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

WEBGISTIX CORPORATION 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0208 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

Judge Douglas M. Rawald 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

'~ 

COMES NOW Complainant, by and through his undersigned attorney, and submits this 

Notice of Appearance in accordance with Section 13.204(b) of the Rules of Practice in FAA 

Civil Penalty Actions [14 C.P.R. §13.204(b)]. Complainant will be represented in the abovereferenced matter by: 

Andrea Michelle Harper, Esq. 

Senior Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320 

Telephone: (404) 305-5200 

Facsimile: (404) 305-5223 

E-mail Address: michelle.harper(a),faa.gov 

Respectfully submitted this 20'h day in April, 2016. 

~~L\RPER Senior Attorney 1 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Enforcement Division, Southern Team 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certifY that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Notice of Appearance In the 

Matter ofWebgistix Corporation, Docket No. FAA-2015-0208, via federal express to: 

Patrick G. Byrne, Esq. 

Justin A. Shiroff, Esq. 

3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100 

Las Vegas, NV 89169 

(FAX) (702) 784-5252 

Webgistix Corporation 

Attn: President 

880 Wigwam Parkway 

Ste. 120 

Henderson, NV 89014 

The Honorable Douglas M. Rawald 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

US Department of Transportation 

1200New Jersey Avenue, SE (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL (202) 366-5121 

FAX (202) 366-7536 

and the original and one copy to: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

ATTN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2W1 000 

AERALDA.JE 

Program Analyst 

Dated 

Webgistix Corporation 

Attn: President 

127 East Warm Springs Rd. 

Las Vegas, NV 89119
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1153

RICHARD A. PATTERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE CITY OF COLUMBIA, a municipality of the State of South Carolina; PAUL MEAD, Detective; G. STINNEY, Officer; JOE CRONIN, Sergeant, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-02-2336-3) Submitted: June 24, 2004 Decided: June 29, 2004 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Gordon Cooper, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, David Leon Morrison, Matthew Blain Rosbrugh, DAVIDSON, MORRISON & LINDEMANN, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Richard A. Patterson appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Patterson v. The City of Columbia , No. CA-02-2336-3 (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
First Amendment



Exhibit 10.1


First Amendment

of

UAL Corporation

Performance Incentive Plan

            The
UAL Corporation Performance Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended,
effective February __, 2006, as follows:

                
1.    Pursuant to the authority provided in Paragraph II.E,
and action taken by the Human Resources Subcommittee, all 2003 Incentive
Awards for Officers who are officers of UAL Corporation or United Air Lines,
Inc. during the period from January 1, 2003 through the date of payment
of the Incentive Awards under the Plan, either in cash or through the issuance
of non-equity securities of UAL Corporation (the "Non-Equity Securities"),
are decreased to zero and eliminated.

               
2.    Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph IV.B,
a Participant shall be entitled to receive a payment of his or her 2003
Incentive Award only if he or she is employed by the Company or an affiliate
on the date of payment either in cash or through the issuance of the Non-Equity
Securities.

               
3.     Notwithstanding any provision of the Plan to
the contrary, payment of Incentive Awards for 2003 may be made either in
cash or in the form of UAL Corporation Non-Equity Securities as soon as
practicable, but no later than 270 days, following the Exit Date. The total
principal amount of all of the Non-Equity Securities issued for payment
of the 2003 Incentive Awards, together with any cash payments made for
2003 Incentive Awards, will be not less than the dollar amount of the Participants'
Incentive Awards for 2003, as otherwise determined in accordance with the
terms of the Plan in effect for 2003, subject to liquidation for withholding
taxes.

               
4.     NO POSTPETITION AGREEMENT. This amendment to
the Plan shall not: (a) alter the pre-petition nature of the Plan for the
purposes of the Company's bankruptcy cases or for any other purpose; (b)
alter the validity, priority or amount of any claims that may have arisen
or may arise under the Plan, other than what the validity, priority, or
amount of such claims would have been had this amendment not been made;
(c) elevate any claims against the Company arising under the Plan to administrative
expense priority status solely by reason of this amendment; (d) constitute
a post-petition agreement or an assumption or adoption thereof; (e) be
construed in any way to mean that the Plan is an executory contract or
post-petition agreement; or (f) act as an assumption or adoption of the
Plan.
SERVED: March 10, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SHARP 29 CORPORATION 

d/b/a ALOHA STATE SALES CO., INC: 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013-1084 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012WP700051) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

GG.Y~~_,..~ Chief Administrative Law !udge 

Attachment - Service List 
\ 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

James Sharp, Vice President 

Sharp 29 Corporation, 

ONE COPY 

d/b/a Aloha State Sales, Inc., Respondent 

2909 Ualena Street · 

·Honolulu, HI 96819 

TEL: 808-844-2929 

FAX: 808-839-5412 

Lisa J. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, WesternPacific Region, A WP-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-200;7 

TEl:-: 310-725-7110 

FAJ<: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, 

Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-1084 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2963 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2963

                  To provide dollars to the classroom.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2013

  Mr. Pitts introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  To provide dollars to the classroom.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Dollars to the Classroom Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON USE BY STATES OF FEDERAL FUNDS PROVIDED FOR 
              ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not less than 95 
percent of any Federal funds made available to a State or State 
educational agency by the Secretary of Education for a purpose relating 
to elementary or secondary education shall be used--
            (1) for academic and classroom (or classroom-related) 
        purposes; or
            (2) at the elementary school or secondary school level.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 22, 2019

NO. 03-18-00547-CV

San Jacinto River Authority, Appellant

v.

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the final order signed by the trial court on August 3, 2018. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s final order. Appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
### NUMBER 13 - 1 9 - 00 102 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF J.P. AND B.P., CHILDREN

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras Appellant Artemio Perez appealed a n order signed on March 18, 2019 confirming support arrearage in cause number F

- 0339

- 17

- 6 in the County Court at Law No. 6 of Hidalgo County, Texas. We dismiss his appeal. On March 21, 2019 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that his notice of appeal was defective because it failed to comply with Texas Ru le of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d)

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.1(d). The Clerk directed appellant to file an amended2

notice of appeal with the trial court within thirty days from the date of that notice. Ap pellant did not do so. On April 24, 2019 , the Clerk notified appellant that the defect in his notice of appeal had not been corrected and warned appellant that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect w as not cured within ten days. Appellant did not co rrect the defect in his notice of appeal or take any other action to prosecute this appeal. An appellate court may dismiss a civil appeal for want of prosecution or because the appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. See id. R. 42.3(b), (c). Here, appellant has failed to comply wi th the requirements of the appellate rules and notices from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. R. 37.3 ; id. R. 42.3(b), (c)

.

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice
D elivered and fil ed the 6th day of J une , 2019.