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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
      financial statements for Independence Tax Credit Plus L.P. IV and is
      qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000940329
<NAME>                        Independence Tax Credit Plus L.P. IV
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         14,108,774
<SECURITIES>                                   10,600,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  418,777
<PP&E>                                         49,521,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,373,655
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 74,823,990
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           7,642,610
<BONDS>                                        26,146,509
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                     41,034,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   74,823,990
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  722,557
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  746,419
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                200,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (224,291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (224,291)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (4.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             203
<SECURITIES>                                       136
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,864<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,949
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   305
<PP&E>                                             387<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,302
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              217
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,158
<SALES>                                         18,095
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,095
<CGS>                                           15,815
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,815
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,331
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   123
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,548)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,548)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNTS REPORTED FOR ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIPMENT ARE
NET AMOUNTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

N O . 09

- 23

- 00192

- C R

__________________

IN RE RAYMOND PEOPLES JR.

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Through a pro se petition for a wr i t of mandamus filed as an original

proceeding with this Court, Raymond Peoples Jr. complains that the trial court

refused to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus under article 11.08 of the

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. He asks this Court to compel the tr i a l court to

accept his writ application

. Peoples has not shown that he is currently under

indictment for a criminal case filed in the Crimi n al District Court of Jefferson

County, nor has he shown that he i s currently acting a s pro se in the trial court and2 is not represented by counsel. 1 Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of

mandamus without prejudice. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED

.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 1 8 , 2023 Opinion Delivered July 19 , 2023

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon , C.J., Johnson and Wright , JJ.

1 We note that t he mandamus petition suffers from notable defects

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52

. Peoples fails to identify the real party in interest or certify that he served a copy of his mandamus petition on the respondent and on the real party in

intere s t. See id. at 52.2 , 52.3(a) ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. The petition la c ks the information required by Rule 52.3(b)

– (h). We use Rule 2, however, to look beyond these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ANNE ELIZABETH BURNS, §

as Chapter 7 Trustee for Hoactzin §

Partners, L.P., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

§

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-cv-0720-E

§

DOLPHIN DIRECT EQUITY §

PARTNERS, LP, ET AL., §

§

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from the United States Bankruptcy 

Court (Doc. 2-1). The Bankruptcy Court recommends that this Court grant Defendant Riley 

Exploration Permian, Inc.’s Motion to Withdraw the Reference to the Bankruptcy Court when the 

Bankruptcy Court certifies that this action is ready for trial and also defer to the Bankruptcy Court

the handling of all pretrial matters. No objections were filed. 

The Court accepts the Report and Recommendation. The United States Bankruptcy Court

shall handle all pretrial matters. When the Bankruptcy Court concludes that the case is ready for 

trial, the Bankruptcy Court should notify this Court and this Court will then withdraw the 

reference.

SO ORDERED; signed May 24, 2022.

Case 3:22-cv-00720-E Document 3 Filed 05/24/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 42
Interagency comments on RIN 2060-AQ89

Higgins, Cortney to: Nick Parsons 09/19/2011 02:41 PM

Cc: Penny Lassiter

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Hi Nick,

Attached are the interagency comments on RIN 2060-AQ89. Please let me know if you have any 

questions about these comments.

Regards,

Cortney

________________________________________________

Cortney Higgins

Policy Analyst

OMB/OIRA/NRE

202.395.7856

chiggins@omb.eop.gov

EO12866_CMAS_2060-AQ89_Reconsideration_Proposal20110614_Interagency Comments Under EOs 12866 and 13563.doc
#### MARSHALL v. STATE.

No. 25805.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 21, 1952.

Williams & Thornton and R. Richard Thornton, Galveston, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted by the jury of negligent homicide in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $3,000.

The facts evidence that appellant, while driving a car in the City of Galveston, had a collision with a car driven by L. C. Hunt, the latter’s wife being with him at the time, and caused the death of said wife of Mr. Hunt.

There are about eight different and separate paragraphs to the only bill of exception found in the record. Undoubtedly this bill is multifarious, and cannot be considered by this court. Spruell v. State, 119 Tex.Cr.R. 317, 44 S.W.2d 733; Miller v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 166, 84 S.W.2d 459; White v. State, 150 Tex.Cr.R. 546, 203 S.W.2d 222; Sharp v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 637, 210 S.W.2d 174; Humphrey v. State, 152 Tex.Cr.R. 203, 212 S.W.2d 159; Smith-wick v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 234 S.W.2d 237; Simpson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 235 S.W.2d 920; Renfro v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 242 S.W.2d 772.

We find, however, a matter that is fatal to the conviction. The indictment in this case, returned by the Galveston County grand jury, alleges that appellant, while driving a motor vehicle -upon a public street in the City of Galveston, through negligence and carelessness struck “Cecile Hunt” and caused her death. The testimony shows that the deceased’s name was “Lucille Hunt”; nowhere in the statement of facts is the name, “Cecile Hunt,” found. The allegata and probata do not correspond. Appellant was charged with taking the life of “Cecile” Hunt, and the testimony shows he took the life of “Lucille” Hunt. This is a fatal variance.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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. 98-60541 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTHONY LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. W-91-CR-5-B

- - - - - - - - - - July 9, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Anthony Lewis has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Lewis has filed a response. Our independent review of the briefs and record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is dismissed. MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

DE-ERIC COOPER, §

PLAINTIFF, §

 §

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-702-K-BK

 §

NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC., §

DEFENDANT. §

ORDER ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

United States Magistrate Judge Renée Harris Toliver made findings, conclusions 

and a recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The Court reviewed the 

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the 

Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, Doc. 3, is 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

Signed February 14th, 2024.

 

____________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00702-K-BK Document 11 Filed 02/14/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 21
February	8th,	2013

Dear	USDOT,

I’m	writing	this	letter	on	behalf	of	Island	Air	Express.		This	is	in	regard	to	awarding	

them	the	contract	to	deliver	mail	to	the	community	of	Klawock.		Island	Air	X	is	a	

valued	business	in	the	community	of	Klawock and	it	only	makes	sense	to	award	

them	the	contract.

Since	they	have	started	their	business,	they	have	proven	to	be	a	very	dependable	

airline.		They	provide	very	reliable	service	to	and	from	Klawock	/	Ketchikan	and	this	

dependability	is	crucial	for	us	that	live	on	Prince	of	Wales	Island.		Their	employees	

are	also	residents	of	Prince	of	Wales	/	Klawock	and	this	does	a	lot	for	our	

community.		

Granting	a	locally	based	company	the	mail	contract	seems	obvious	to	me.		In	

addition	to	that,	they	have	a	more	dependable	service	and	the	mail	will	come	and	go	

on	a	more	consistent	basis.		I	urge	you	to	consider	these	points	and	award	the	

contract	to	Island	Air	Express.		

Sincerely,

Jim	Holien

Klawock	/	Prince	of	Wales	Island	resident
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 105 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 105

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                May 27 (legislative day, April 19), 1993

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for an adjournment of the House from the legislative day of 
Thursday, May 27, 1993, to Tuesday, June 8, 1993, and an adjournment or 
 recess of the Senate from Friday, May 28, 1993, until Monday, June 7, 
                                 1993.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, May 
27, 1993, it stand adjourned until noon on Tuesday, June 8, 1993, or 
until noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of 
business on Friday, May 28, 1993, pursuant to a motion made by the 
Majority Leader, or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, 
it stand recessed or adjourned until noon, or until such time as may be 
specified by the Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to 
adjourn or recess, on Monday, June 7, 1993, or until noon on the second 
day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of 
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointing after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 27, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
# AVS

Quality Management System Title: Domestic NewAction Worksheet with No S8 QPM# AIR-ANM-D30..f6
Date: December 17, 2008 Revision 

### 1 Page 4 of 5 

# Record ofContacts 20 I0 - OOLj

# 2- FOMS Docket No. FAA..:tt&

_ With \vhom outside the 

### FA..o\ has tJjis proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA., etc.)?

Organization Person CQntacted Date 

### ATA atafQ}airiines.org to the attention of 

### May 19,2008 Mr. Fuse-us

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Checll the Masier List to Verify ThaI This.isthe Correct RevlstOn Before Use
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF COMMUNICATIONS INSTRUMENTS, INC. (AS OF 12/31/98)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

            Name of Entity                                             Name of Owner
            --------------                                             -------------
<S>                                                       <C>
Electro-Mech, S.A. de C.V., a corporation                 Communications Instruments, Inc., a North
organized under the laws of Mexico                        Carolina Corporation

Kilovac Corporation, a California corporation             Communications Instruments, Inc., a North
                                                          Carolina Corporation

Corcom, Inc., an Illinois corporation                     Communications Instruments, Inc., a North
                                                          Carolina Corporation

Kilovac International, Inc., a California                 Kilovac Corporation, a California corporation
corporation

Kilovac International FSC, Ltd., a                        Kilovac Corporation, a California corporation
corporation organized under the laws of
Jamaica

Corcom, S.A. de C.V., a corporation                       Corcom, Inc., an Illinois corporation
organized under the laws of Mexico

Corcom West Indies Ltd., a corporation                    Corcom, Inc., an Illinois corporation
organized under the laws of Barbados

Corcom International Ltd., a corporation                  Corcom, Inc., an Illinois corporation
organized under the laws of Barbados

Corcom GmbH, a corporation organized                      Corcom, Inc., an Illinois corporation
under the laws of Germany

Corcom Far East Ltd., a corporation                       Corcom, Inc., an Illinois corporation
organized under the laws of Hong Kong
</TABLE>
# AGENCY:

 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

# ACTION:

 Notice of Agency Report Forms Under OMB Review. 

# SUMMARY:

 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). 

# DATES:

 Comments on this proposal should be received on or before March 10, 2000. 

# ADDRESSES:

 All comments should be addressed to Mr. Karl Beisel, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Ms. Carmela Simonson, Office of the Chief Information Officer, (202) 358-1223. 

*Reports:*                         None.                    

*Title:*                         Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology.                    

*OMB Number:*                         2700-Type of Review: New.                    

*Need and Uses:*                         NASA must safeguard its unclassified Information Technology hardware, software and data. Respondents will be NASA contractors and subcontractors involved in IT.                    

*Affected Public:*                         Business or other for-profit.                    

*Estimated Number of Respondents:*                         200.                    

*Responses Per Respondent:*                         2.                    

*Estimated Annual Responses:*                         400.                        Start Printed Page 6398

*Estimated Hours Per Request:*                         470 hrs.                    

*Estimated Annual Burden Hours:*                         188,000.                    

*Frequency of Report:*                         Semi-annually.                    

David B. Nelson, 

Deputy Chief Information Officer, Office of the Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 00-2869 Filed 2-8-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
#### LOPEZ v. STATE.

No. 25512.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 21, 1951.

No attorney on appeal.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Robbery is the offense; the punishment, nine years in the penitentiary.

Blocker, the alleged injured party, identified the appellant as the person who robbed him of his automobile and a small amount of money.

By written confession, appellant admitted that the crime was committed by assault without the use or display of a pistol.

Upon the trial of the case appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, repudiated the confession and testified to facts showing innocence of the crime charged.

The facts abundantly authorized the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

No bill of exception accompanies the record. Appellant reserved no exception to the action of the trial court in refusing his special requested charges; hence these are not before us for consideration.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
#### GIBSON v. STATE.

No. 23801.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1947.

George Q. Youngblood, B. D. Paschal and Bern Wilson, all of Dallas, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is robbery. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record complaining of the admission or rejection of evidence nor any objections to the court’s charge. Consequently, there is nothing presented for review but *the sufficiency*of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

The record reflects that on the night of December 23, 1945, Louis B. Clou-tier, while on his way home, was robbed by two Negroes. They took from his person a 'billfold containing $3.85, and a diamond stickpin. He immediately reported the robbery to the Police Department and a very short time later, appellant and his companion, Walter Hawkins, were arrested and the diamond stickpin was recovered. Appellant testified in his own behalf and denied that he robbed Cloutier or had any connection therewith. It will be noted that the evidence raised an issue of fact which the jury decided adversely to him. Appellant seems to insist that the testimony of the State’s witness was not worthy of belief. He was a competent witness, his testimony was pertinent and admissible. The credibility and weight to be given to his testimony was within the exclusive province of the jury.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.