alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                                                                          
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                            
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                      
|View History:                                                             
|                                                                          
|Wyoming Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                          
|                                                                          
|Wyoming Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 12     | 7      | 6      | 6      | 7      | 7      | 6      | 5     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 5      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | NA     | 4      | NA     | 5     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 5      | 6     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 5      | 5      | 5     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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.

_________________________________________ Clerk June 25, 2012

h0618 

# Order

June 25, 2012

144704

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144704

COA: 301226

Kalamazoo CC: 2010

- 000090

- FC

KEVIN DELANDO TURNER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2012

judgment of the Co urt of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Cite as State v. Lanier, 128 Ohio St.3d 339, 2011-Ohio-5.] 

THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LANIER, APPELLANT. 

[Cite as State v. Lanier, 128 Ohio St.3d 339, 2011-Ohio-5.] 

Judgment of the court of appeals vacated in part, and cause remanded to the 

court of appeals for application of State v. Johnson. 

(Nos. 2009-0232 and 2009-0328 — Submitted January 4, 2011 — Decided 

January 5, 2011.) 

CERTIFIED by and APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, 

No. C-080162, 180 Ohio App.3d 376, 2008-Ohio-6906. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} Sua sponte, case No. 2009-0232 is dismissed as having been 

improvidently certified. 

{¶ 2} In case No. 2009-0328, the portion of the court of appeals’ 

judgment addressing appellant’s third assignment of error below is vacated, sua 

sponte, on the authority of State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for 

application of our decision in State v. Johnson. 

{¶ 3} Oral argument in these cases scheduled for January 18, 2011, is 

accordingly canceled. 

 O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. 

Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

Roger W. Kirk, for appellant. 

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Terrence K. Scott, Assistant 

Public Defender, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Public Defender. 

______________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

EUGENIO VARGAS §

§

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-430-Y

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL §

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, ET AL. §

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH AND FOR 

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REFERRING MOTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’

Notice to Take Deposition and Motion for Temporary Protective Order

(doc. 118). Having reviewed the motion, the Court concludes that

the parties should be given a final opportunity to resolve this

discovery dispute without Court intervention.

In this regard, the parties are again directed to the per-curiam

opinion in Dondi Properties Corp. v. Commerce Savings & Loan Assoc.,

121 F.R.D. 284 (N.D. Tex. 1988). That opinion sets forth standards

of conduct for counsel (and pro se parties) to follow throughout

litigation. Particularly relevant here are the standards for conduct

during discovery. "[Parties] should make reasonable efforts to

conduct all discovery by agreement." Id. at 293. The Court cautions

the parties that it does not take discovery disputes lightly, and,

if a final resolution by the Court is necessary, sanctions will be

imposed upon any party conducting or opposing discovery unreasonably,

in bad faith, or otherwise not in compliance with the rules or Dondi.

Therefore, the parties shall confer and make a good-faith effort

to resolve this discovery dispute between themselves. If the parties

are able to completely resolve this discovery dispute, Plaintiff shall

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 126 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 4037
notify the Court in writing as soon as possible, but not later than

November 3, 2023, that the motion should be rendered moot.

 If the parties are able to resolve part, but not all of their

discovery dispute, Plaintiff must file an amended motion as to the

remaining disputed matters only no later than November 3.

Should the parties be able to resolve none or only a part of

their discovery dispute, Defendants must respond to Plaintiff’s

initial or amended motion to compel no later than November 30. Any

reply to Defendants’ response must be filed in accordance with Rule

7.1(f) of the local civil rules of this Court.

Furthermore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash

and any amended motion filed in accordance with this order should

be and are hereby REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey

L. Cureton for determination. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). All

papers filed hereafter regarding this motion or any amendment thereto

shall include the following notation under the case-number: “(Relates

to Motion Referred to Magistrate Judge Cureton).”1 

SIGNED September 29, 2023.

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1The judge’s copy of all documents related to this motion should be mailed

to the Honorable Jeffrey L. Cureton, Eldon B. Mahon United States Courthouse, 501

West 10th Street, Room 520, Fort Worth, Texas 76102.

2

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 126 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 4038
#### Ella WILSON, Movant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Opposed.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 6, 1952.

Buford A. Short, Beattyville, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., John B. Browning, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Motion for an appeal from the Owsley Circuit Court. Judgment of conviction for maintaining a nuisance. $50 fine. The facts, questions raised, authorities cited and applicable law have been carefully considered.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

   The undersigned, Thomas C. Shields, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of ANADIGICS, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 27, 2003 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.





Dated: November 3, 2003
                                                /s/ Thomas C. Shields
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Thomas C. Shields
                                                Senior Vice President
                                                and Chief Financial Officer





This certification shall not be deemed to be "filed" for the purpose of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be
incorporated by reference into any registration statement filed under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as
being incorporated by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be
retained by ANADIGICS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       18
# Official Journal C 352I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 352I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6322 October 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 352I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6322 October 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 352 I/01 | Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of aluminium converter foil originating in the People’s Republic of China | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

European Commission

2020/C 352 I/01

Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of aluminium converter foil originating in the People’s Republic of China

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted for the three
months ended September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                     103,264,000
<SECURITIES>                                29,746,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               34,149,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 17,709,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           191,837,000
<PP&E>                                     179,158,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              77,665,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             333,498,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,386,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       299,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 307,464,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               333,498,000
<SALES>                                     51,075,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            51,075,000
<CGS>                                       24,810,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,810,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            17,973,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (15,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (2,756,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,063,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,986,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          7,077,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,077,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23



</TABLE>
IN THE U}TITED STATES DISTRICT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

DALLAS DTVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

STEFOND DUJAN BELL (l),

Defendant.

REPORT AI\[D RECOMMEI{DATION

CONCER}IING PLEA OF GT]ILTY

STEFOND DUJAI\ BELL (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (sthCir.1997),

has appeared before me pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count I of the Superseding

Indictment After cautioning and examining STEFOND DUJAN BELL (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects

mentioned in Rule 1 l, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense(s) charged is

supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend

that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that STEFOND DUJAN BELL (l) be adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. $$ 922(g)0)

and 924(a\Q) Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Feton and have sentence imposed accordingly. After being found

guilty 9f the offense by the district judge,

d The defendant is cunently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

n The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 3la3(aXl) unless the Court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community

if released.

n The Government does not oppose release.

n The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

tr I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under $ 3142(b) or (c)'

The Government opposes release.

The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the

Government.

n The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 3la3(aX2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown

under g 3 la5(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence

that the defendant ii not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: February 9,2023.

UNITED STATES MAGIS

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its

service shall bar an aggrievea p-u.ty from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. $636(bXlXB).

tr

D

n

t).s. I)ls'l'Rl(:T (lotjIt'|"

\oRTt iliRN r)rs't'ru('T ()ll Tlx^s

FILED

FEB - I z}n

CI,IiRK, U.S. DIS'I'RICT COURT

Case 3:22-cr-00237-M Document 25 Filed 02/09/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 42
Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 7 Filed 07/07/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 50
Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 7 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 51
Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 7 Filed 07/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 52
Case 3:22-cv-01184-E Document 7 Filed 07/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 53
#### ORTIZ et al. v. STATE.

No. 24511.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 30, 1949.

Frank J. Alvarado, San Antonio, for appellants.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for rape in which Epifanio L. Ortiz was assessed a sentence of seven years in the penitentiary and Pedro Ortiz was given five years.

Appellants were jointly indicted, along with Jose Marin, for the offense of rape, the victim being a Negro woman. Jose Marin was granted a severance and was not tried with these appellants. The evidence of the case is amply sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict finding them guilty of rape by for'ce.

The record brings to us two bills of exception which may be considered together under the same discussion. The prosecuting witness testified, giving her name as Mattie Mae Teel.' It developed during her testimony that she was the common law. wife of a Negro named Teel and she stated that she had been married to another man, in Grayson County, but was divorced from him. She had two children *884by that marriage who lived in Grayson County. Following this the appellants presented a telegram from the District Clerk at Sherman stating that the records of that county did not show a divorce for the prosecuting witness. Appellants offered this telegram in evidence. The State objected to its introduction and the trial court properly refused to receive it in evidence. Appellants asked for a postponement of the case until they could bring the records from Grayson County to be used in evidence. This request was made orally and we find no written motion asking for-a continuance of the case,' or a postponement for that purpose. This procedure is not in compliance with Article 551, C.C.P., as construed by this Court in Bascom v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 32, 24 S.W.2d 437. See. also Walker v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 56, 232 S.W. 509.

It is not necessary to discuss the other questions briefed and our conclusion that proper steps were not taken to secure the postponement precludes the necessity for further discussion of either bill.

■ Finding no reversible error shown by the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

PHILLIP REED, §

#57959177, §

Movant, §

 §

v. § CIVIL NO. 3:22-CV-1683-B-BK

 § (CRIMINAL NO. 3:18-CR-194-B-2)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

Respondent. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation in

this case. No objections were filed. The District 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.

SO ORDERED this 14 day of September, 2022. th

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01683-B-BK Document 4 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 26
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00073-Z-BR

§

CURTIS LEE WINE (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

CURTIS LEE WINE (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), has 

appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining CURTIS LEE WINE (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I 

determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that CURTIS LEE WINE (1) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(C) -

POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE and have sentence imposed accordingly. After 

being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: March 17, 2023

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00073-Z-BR Document 38 Filed 03/17/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 89
H. J. Res. 127

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

Joint Resolution

To authorize the President to proclaim the last Friday of April 1993 as

‘‘National Arbor Day’’.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President

is hereby authorized and requested to issue a proclamation designating the last Friday of April 1993 as ‘‘National Arbor Day’’

and calling upon the people of the United States to observe such

a day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.