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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3589 

To terminate the Denali Commission, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 21, 2013 

Mr. CHABOT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To terminate the Denali Commission, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eliminate the Commis5 sion to Nowhere Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF DENALI COMMISSION. 

7 (a) TERMINATION.—The Denali Commission is ter8 minated. 

9 (b) TRANSFERS.—The authority of any Federal de10 partment or agency to transfer funds to the Denali Com11 mission shall cease to be effective. 

12 (c) REPEALS.— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3589 IH

1 (1) The Denali Commission Act of 1998 (42 

2 U.S.C. 3121 note) is repealed. 

3 (2) Section 329(b) of division A of Public Law 

4 105–277 (112 Stat. 2681–470(b)) is repealed. 

5 (d) CONCLUSION OF BUSINESS.—The Secretary of 

6 Commerce shall take such actions as may be necessary 

7 and appropriate to conclude the outstanding affairs of the 

8 Denali Commission, including dispositions of personnel, 

9 assets, and obligations. 

10 (e) LIMITATION ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.— 

11 This section may not be construed to prevent the expendi12 ture of any funds received before the effective date of this 

13 Act. Such funds shall be subject to the laws and regula14 tions that would have applied to the funds if this section 

15 had not been enacted. 

16 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

17 This Act shall take effect on the first day of the first 

18 fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of this 

19 Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### HALE v. STATE.

No. 22349.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 13, 1943.

Nat Gentry, Jr., of Tyler, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a plea of guilty to a violation of the liquor laws with a penalty of fifteen days in jail.

The record is before us without bills of exception or statement of facts.

The procedure is regular and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
66168 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 214 / Friday, November 3, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October

24, 2000.

D. L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28294 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 2000–ASW–17]

Revision of Class E Airspace,

Fayetteville, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of

effective date.

SUMMARY: This notice confirms the

effective date of a direct final rule which

revises the Class E Airspace at

Fayetteville, AR.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The direct final rule

published at 65 FR 54953 is effective

0901 UTC, November 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air

Traffic Division, Southwest Region,

Federal Aviation Administration, Fort

Worth, TX 76193–0520, telephone: 817–

222–5593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

published this direct final rule with a

request for comments in the Federal

Register on September 12, 2000, (65 FR

54953). The FAA uses the direct final

rulemaking procedure for a

noncontroversial rule where the FAA

believes that there will be no adverse

public comment. This direct final rule

advised the public that no adverse

comments were anticipated, and that

unless a written adverse comment, or a

written notice of intent to submit such

an adverse comment, were received

within the comment period, the

regulation would become effective on

November 30, 2000. No adverse

comments were received, and, thus, this

action confirms that this direct final rule

will be effective on that date.

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 27,

2000.

Robert N. Stevens,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southwest Region.

[FR Doc. 00–28292 Filed 11–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 2000–ASW–18]

Revision of Class D Airspace, Robert

Gray Army Airfield, TX; and

Revocation of Class D Airspace, Hood

Army Airfield, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of

effective date.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         602,814
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,082,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 12,790,653
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,622,749
<PP&E>                                       3,459,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,260,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,268,765
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,958
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,260,670
<SALES>                                     19,060,624
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,060,624
<CGS>                                       10,824,117
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,179,792
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             837,152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 51,356
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             51,356
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    51,356
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11.1

SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              THREE MONTHS ENDED             SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                SEPTEMBER 30,                 SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                             1999           1998           1999           1998
                                                             ----           ----           ----           ----
<S>                                                      <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Net loss applicable to common stock                      $  (366,142)   $  (820,209)   $  (500,020)   $(1,142,749)

Weighted average number of common shares equivalent:
Common shares outstanding                                  5,879,601      4,541,266      5,303,694      4,563,207

Common equivalent shares representing shares
  issuable upon exercise of stock options and warrants

Incremental common equivalent shares (calculated                   0              0              0              0
  using the higher of end of period or average fair
  market value)

     Total weighted average shares - as adjusted           5,879,601      4,541,266      5,303,694      4,563,207

     Basic                                                     (0.06)         (0.18)         (0.09)         (0.25)
     Diluted                                                   (0.06)         (0.18)         (0.09)         (0.25)
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>      5 
<LEGEND>    THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
            FROM THE CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND
            THE CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
            JUNE 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                     1,707
<SECURITIES>                               6,499
<RECEIVABLES>                              7,466
<ALLOWANCES>                                 662
<INVENTORY>                                6,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          22,971
<PP&E>                                     7,909
<DEPRECIATION>                             3,246
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            32,027
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      3,845
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5
<OTHER-SE>                                27,977
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              32,027
<SALES>                                   16,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          16,620
<CGS>                                      7,670
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              8,189
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (204)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              965
<INCOME-TAX>                                 386
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          579
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                 579
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              $0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                              $0.11

         

</TABLE>
June 30, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BILL & ELIZABETH FISHER D/B/A SARANAC OAKS RANCH, Appellant

NO. 14-14-01014-CV V.

ULTIMATE KOBE BEEF, L.L.C., CHAMPION GENETICS, INC., ALLISON 

MAE GODWIN AND BRUCE R. HEMMINGSEN, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard the parties’ joint motion to reverse the judgment 

signed by the court below on May 21, 2012. Having considered the motion and 

found it meritorious, we order the judgment REVERSED AND REMAND the 

cause to the trial court for proceedings in accordance with this Court's opinion. 

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 214 (Friday, November 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28037]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33938]


Adrian & Blissfield Rail Road Company--Acquisition Exemption--
Michigan Department of Transportation

    Adrian & Blissfield Rail Road Company (ADBF), a Class III rail 
carrier, has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to 
acquire (by purchase) approximately 19.3 miles of rail lines located in 
Lenawee County, MI, owned by the Michigan Department of Transportation 
(MDOT).
    The lines to be acquired are as follows: (1) From east of Riga, MI, 
at the interchange with the Indiana and Ohio Railway, or its successor, 
north and west through Riga, Blissfield, Palmyra, Lenawee Junction, 
Grosvenor Junction, and Adrian, MI, to Porter Highway; (2) from 
Grosvenor Junction southwest approximately 1.7 miles; and (3) from 
Lenawee Junction north approximately .25 miles. The lines are described 
more specifically as follows: the Adrian Main Line Extension: (i) 
Between milepost 315.5 (Interchange with Indiana & Ohio Railway at 
Riga) and milepost 321.0 (Grosvenor Junction); (ii) between Grosvenor 
Junction milepost 0.0 and milepost 1.7; (iii) between milepost 321.0 
(Grosvenor Junction) and milepost 325.5 (Lenawee Junction); (iv) 
between Lenawee Junction milepost 0.0 and milepost 0.25; and (v) 
between milepost 325.5 (Lenawee Junction) and milepost 332.85 (Porter 
Highway). ADBF certifies that its projected revenues as a result of 
this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class II or Class 
I rail carrier, and further certifies that its annual revenues will not 
exceed $5 million. ADBF currently operates over the lines.
    The earliest the transaction could be consummated was October 25, 
2000, the effective date of the exemption (7 days after the exemption 
was filed).
    If this notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke does not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33938, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Kenneth J. Bisdorf, 2301 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 600, 
Troy, MI 48084-3329.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: October 25, 2000.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28037 Filed 11-02-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          51,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  374,715
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,443
<INVENTORY>                                    410,283
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               848,937
<PP&E>                                         127,592
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,089,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          566,005
<BONDS>                                        205,464
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           170
<OTHER-SE>                                     204,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,089,317
<SALES>                                        850,573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               850,573
<CGS>                                          774,571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  805,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,066
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,560
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,182
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,378
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,378
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.17


</TABLE>
Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BV Document 328 Filed 07/06/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 725
Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BV Document 328 Filed 07/06/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 726
#### Ambros George ADRIAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23593.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 27, 1946.

Crisp & Bankhead, of Kaufman, and L. F. Sanders, of Canton, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for murder without malice, punishment assessed being two years in the penitentiary.

We are advised by the personal affidavit of appellant that he does not desire to further prosecute his appeal, and at his request same is dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 139 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 139

 To express the sense of the Congress that activities performed by the 
  White House Travel and Telegraph Office should be procured from the 
                            private sector.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 6, 1993

 Mr. Sangmeister submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 
         was referred to the Committee on Government Operations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 To express the sense of the Congress that activities performed by the 
  White House Travel and Telegraph Office should be procured from the 
                            private sector.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that--
            (1) all activities that before the date of the adoption of 
        this resolution were performed by the White House Travel and 
        Telegraph Office (commonly referred to as the ``White House 
        Travel Office'') and that can be performed by private business 
        should be procured from the private sector; and
            (2) Federal personnel employed in the White House should 
        not perform any of those activities.

                                 <all>
```
#### Ex parte MAGEE.

No. 24712.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1950.

*832None on appeal for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Crim. Dist. Atty., Houston, E. T. Branch, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Houston, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

PIAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Relator was held in custody by the Sheriff •of Harris County, Texas, under an extradition warrant from the Governor of Texas directing the return of relator to the State of Arkansas to answer a charge of arson against relator and Joe Savage, who were alleged to be fugitives from said demanding State. Both McGee and Savage secured writs of habeas corpus from the Judge Aof Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County, upon their claim that neither of them were in Arkansas at or about the time of the alleged arson, and were not therefore fugitives from said State. Upon a hearing both Magee and Savage were remanded to the sheriff to be delivered to an agent for return to Arkansas, and from such order this appeal is prosecuted.

The recitals in the extradition warrant of the Governor of Texas as to the right of the demanding State to the return of said relators is sufficient, and the only issue at the habeas corpus hearing was one of fact as to the presence or not of relators in Arkansas at the time of the alleged arson. On this issue the evidence was conflicting; that for Magee and Savage being that they were not in Arkansas at the time of the alleged arson, and that they had never been in that State; on the other hand, evidence for the State was contradictory and to the effect that they were both in Arkansas at the time of the alleged arson. The trial judge saw and heard these witnesses, and specifically finds in the judgment remanding relators that they were the parties named in the Governor’s extradition warrant, and are the parties wanted for the alleged crime of arson, and that they “fled from the State of Arkansas into this State after the commission of said crime, and are fugitives from justice as stated in the Governor’s warrant.”

Under conflicting evidence as here found the holdings of our court are to the effect that the judgment of the trial court remanding relators will not be disturbed. See Ex parte Woodland, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 616, 177 S.W.2d 62; Ex parte Lunceford, 147 Tex.Cr.R. 579, 183 S.W.2d 461; Ex parte Barnett, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 628, 190 S.W.2d 361; also, State of South Carolina v. Bailey, 289 U.S. 412, 53 S.Ct. 667, 77 L.Ed. 1292.

The judgment remanding relator is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

DAVID SAMBRANO, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:21-cv-1074-P

UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Lift Stay and For Partial 

Final Judgment. ECF No. 279. Having carefully considered the Motion

and both parties’ supporting briefs, the Court finds that the Motion 

should be and is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED on this 30th day of September 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

REGINALEA KEMP,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:23-cv-00841-P

REGIONS BANK ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File 

Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Having considered the Motion 

and applicable docket entries, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

SO ORDERED on this 18th day of September 2023.

______________________________________________ 

Mark T. Pittman 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:21-cv-01074-P Document 284 Filed 10/01/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 19383