alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ERIC JACKSON ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:22-cv-825-P

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, IN HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY

OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motions for Class Certification, 

Appointment of Class Counsel, a Temporary Restraining Order, and a 

Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 4. Having considered Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Temporary Restraining Order (“Motion”), relevant docket entries, 

applicable law, and arguments, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not 

shown themselves to be entitled to the relief they request. The Court 

thus DENIES the Motion without prejudice.

The Court further ORDERS that by September 23, 2022, the 

Parties shall prepare and submit a Joint Report containing proposed 

deadlines for the following: (1) Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’

Motions for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Counsel, and 

Preliminary Injunction; and (2) Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants 

Opposition.

SO ORDERED on this 19th day of September 2022.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 11 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 752
EXHIBIT J

Case 3:22-cv-01713-S   Document 1-10   Filed 08/08/22    Page 1 of 1   PageID 31Case 3:22-cv-01713-S   Document 1-10   Filed 08/08/22    Page 1 of 1   PageID 31
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 11

                           CRA Managed Care, Inc.
          CALCULATION OF SHARES USED IN DETERMINING EARNINGS PER SHARE
              for the Three Months Ended March 31, 1996 and 1997

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              1996       1997
                                                           ---------   ---------
<S>                                                        <C>         <C>
Weighted average number of shares of common
 stock outstanding during the period...................... 7,373,000   8,935,000

Common stock equivalents, under the
 treasury stock method.....................................  177,000     167,000
                                                          ----------  ----------
                                                           7,550,000   9,102,000
                                                          ----------  ----------
                                                          ----------  ----------
</TABLE>
 
                                       13
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 208 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  Union Calendar No. 92

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 208

                          [Report No. 103-167]

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

    Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-
 favored-nation treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of 
                                 China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              July 1, 1993

 Reported adversely, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                     

                                                  Union Calendar No. 92
103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 208

                          [Report No. 103-167]

    Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-
 favored-nation treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of 
                                 China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 1993

  Mr. Solomon (for himself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Applegate, and Mr. King) 
 introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

                              July 1, 1993

Additional sponsors: Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Abercrombie, and Ms. Molinari

                              July 1, 1993

 Reported adversely, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
           the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-
 favored-nation treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of 
                                 China.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does not 
approve the extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of 
the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the Congress on 
May 28, 1993, with respect to the People's Republic of China.
```
List of Technical Support Documents for the 2007, 2017, and 2025Point, Area, and Nonroad (Except NMIM Emissions 

for 2025) Emissions Inventory for the Washington, DC-MD-VA PM2.5 NAA 

Appendix A1 (Washington DC-MD-VA Maintenance Plan, May 22, 2013) Page 1

Appendix A1

List of MARAMA Technical Support 

Documents for the

Development of Point (EGU & Non-EGU), 

Area, and Nonroad Mobile 

(Except NMIM Emissions for 2025)

Emissions inventories for 2007, 2017, 2025

(Washington, DC-MD-VA PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area)
List of Technical Support Documents for the 2007, 2017, and 2025Point, Area, and Nonroad (Except NMIM Emissions 

for 2025) Emissions Inventory for the Washington, DC-MD-VA PM2.5 NAA 

Appendix A1 (Washington DC-MD-VA Maintenance Plan, May 22, 2013) Page 2

List of MARAMA Technical Support Documents for the 

Development of 

Point (EGU & Non-EGU), Area, and Nonroad Mobile

Emissions for 2007, 2017, and 2025

1. Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2007 Emission Inventory 

for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic Region Version 

3_3, January 23, 2012 (Prepared by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure & SRA 

International, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association)

2. Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2017 / 2020 Emission 

Inventories for Regional Air Quality Modeling in the Northeast / Mid-Atlantic 

Region Version 3_3, January 23, 2012 (Prepared by AMEC Environment & 

Infrastructure & SRA International, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air 

Management Association)

3. Technical Support Document for the Development of the 2025 Emission Inventory 

for PM Nonattainment Counties in the MANE-VU Region Version 3.3 Rev.2. 

January 23, 2012 (Prepared by AMEC Environment & Infrastructure & SRA 

International, Inc. for the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association)a

a

This document only includes version 3.3 of the NMIM emissions for 2025 for Virginia 

counties and cities in the Wahignton, DC-MD-VA PM2.5 NAA. It only includes version 2

and not version 3.3 of the NMIM emissions for 2025 for the District of Columbia and 

Maryland counties in the Wahignton, DC-MD-VA PM2.5 NAA. Thereofe, MWCOG 

revised NMIM emissions for 2025 for the District of Columbia and Maryland counties and 

also replicated MARAMA runs for the Virignia counties and cities, which are part of the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA PM2.5 nonattainment area using the NMIM software version 

and NCD input databases available at MARAMA ftp site (ftp.marama.org) in February 

2012. The above versions of NMIM software and NCD database were used by MARAMA 

to develop version 3.3 of the NMIM emissions for VA for 2025. Appendix B1 of the 

PM2.5 redesignaion request and mainteneace plan describes in detail the development of 

the 2025 NMIM emissions for the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virignia counties 

and cities in the Washington, DC-MD-VA PM2.5 NAA.
Case 3:22-cv-00858-S-BN Document 26 Filed 08/26/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 284
# C_2015056EN.01000502.xml

| 16.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 November 2014 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-528/14)

(2015/C 056/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X

Appellant:

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1) | Does Regulation 1186/2009 (1) include the possibility that a natural person has at the same time his normal place of residence in both a Member State and a third country and, if so, does the relief from import duties provided for in Article 3 apply to personal property, which, when a person ceases to have his normal place of residence in the third country, is transferred to the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Does Regulation 1186/2009 (1) include the possibility that a natural person has at the same time his normal place of residence in both a Member State and a third country and, if so, does the relief from import duties provided for in Article 3 apply to personal property, which, when a person ceases to have his normal place of residence in the third country, is transferred to the European Union?

1

| 2) | If Regulation 1186/2009 precludes two normal places of residence and an assessment of all the circumstances does not suffice to determine the normal place of residence, on the basis of which rule or which criteria is it necessary to determine, for the purposes of the application of that regulation, in which country the person concerned has his normal place of residence in a case such as the present case in which that person has both personal and occupational ties in the third country and personal ties in the Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2)

If Regulation 1186/2009 precludes two normal places of residence and an assessment of all the circumstances does not suffice to determine the normal place of residence, on the basis of which rule or which criteria is it necessary to determine, for the purposes of the application of that regulation, in which country the person concerned has his normal place of residence in a case such as the present case in which that person has both personal and occupational ties in the third country and personal ties in the Member State?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 2009 L 324, p. 23).

1

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Iudice, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), imposed November 20, 1989, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 4 to 8 years’ imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, on the law, by reducing the sentence imposed to an indeterminate term of *3Vz*years’ to 7 years’ imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The People concede that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court is illegal. The defendant was convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, a class D felony (Penal Law § 220.31). Since the defendant was properly adjudicated a second felony offender, the maximum term of imprisonment authorized under law is *31⁄2*to 7 years *(see,*Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [d]; [4] [b]). Thus the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court exceeded the statutory maximum.

The defendant is a prior felony offender who was originally promised a sentence of *21⁄2*to 5 years’ imprisonment as part of a plea bargain. He failed to appear for sentencing and was produced almost six months later pursuant to a bench warrant. At sentencing, in return for the prosecutor’s agreement to forbear from prosecuting him for bail jumping, the defendant agreed to accept an enhanced sentence on the instant matter of 4 to 8 years’ imprisonment. While, as stated above, that sentence was illegal, the maximum authorized term of *3Vz*to 7 years is clearly appropriate under the circumstances *513and we have reduced the sentence accordingly. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCKDTVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

NO. 5:22-CR-048-01-H

DEVIN SCOTT LEAMON,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been flIed within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

$ 636OXl), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magisrate Judge conceming the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty.

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated June 30,2022.

JAMES LE HENDRIX

UNITED ATES DISTRICTJUDGE

/l

Case 5:22-cr-00048-H-BQ Document 29 Filed 06/30/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 54
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Plaintiff

Defendant

v.

Civil Action No.

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS 

(This form also satisfies Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1)

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 and LR 3.1(c), LR 3.2(e), LR 7.4, LR 81.1(a)(4)(D), and LR 81.2,

provides the following information:

 For a nongovernmental corporate party, the name(s) of its parent corporation and any 

publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock (if none, state "None"): 

*Please separate names with a comma. Only text visible within box will print.

 A complete list of all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations, 

guarantors, insurers, affiliates, parent or subsidiary corporations, or other legal entities that are 

financially interested in the outcome of the case: 

*Please separate names with a comma. Only text visible within box will print.

DALLAS DIVISION

DANIEL P. KELLY, JR.

3:22-cv-01412-N

PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC

DANIEL P. KELLY, JR.

PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC 

DANIEL P. KELLY, JR., Plaintiff 

PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Defendant 

Sulaiman Law Group Ltd., Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 3:22-cv-01412-N Document 2 Filed 06/30/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 10
Date:

Signature:

Print Name:

Telephone:

Address:

City, State, Zip:

Bar Number:

Fax:

E-Mail:

NOTE: To electronically file this document, you will find the event in our Case Management (CM/ECF) system, under Civil/Other 

Documents/Certificate of Interested Persons

6/30/2022

/s/ Nathan C. Volheim

Nathan C. Volheim

6302103

2500 S. Highland Ave., Suite 200

Lombard, IL 60148

(630) 575-8181

(630) 575-8188

nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com

Case 3:22-cv-01412-N Document 2 Filed 06/30/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 11
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 31

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit

the terms of office for Members of Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. HANCOCK introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to limit the terms of office for Members of Congress.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
2

•HJ 31 IH

1 States within seven years after the date of its submission

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person may serve any portion of a

5 term as Representative if, taking into account only service

6 on or after the date on which this section takes effect,

7 at the completion of that term the person would have

8 served as a Representative for more than four full terms

9 (not including any part of a partial term to which the per10 son may have been elected or appointed).

11 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person may serve any portion of a

12 term as Senator if, taking into account only service on

13 or after the date on which this section takes effect, at the

14 completion of that term the person would have served as

15 a Senator for more than two full terms (not including any

16 part of a partial term to which the person may have been

17 elected or appointed).

18 ‘‘SECTION 3. This article shall take effect at noon of

19 the first January 3 that occurs more than one year after

20 the date of adoption of this article and on which terms

21 of Representatives begin.’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nestor Marquez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Seewald, J.), rendered February 21, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of sodomy in the first degree and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of imprisonment of *8V2*to 17 years, unanimously affirmed.

The then-nine-year-old victim, and her then-seven-year-old brother, who was unsworn, testified that defendant forced her to perform oral sex on May 3 and May 5, 1987, within days of the victim’s ninth birthday. While employment records indicated that defendant was working substantially all day on May 5, the defendant was in fact fired on June 5, 1987, for lateness and absenteeism. There was also evidence that employees could "punch in” or "punch out” for one another. Under these circumstances and given the weight of the remaining evidence, the jury could properly find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We find no reason to review, in the interests of justice, defendant’s unpreserved contentions regarding the sufficiency of the indictment. Each count of the indictment, which charged a single offense, put defendant on notice of the charges *(People v Keindl,*68 NY2d 410). Nor were the time periods charged in the indictment unreasonable as a matter of law *(see, People v Morris,*61 NY2d 290).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved or without merit. Concur—Kupferman, ? J. P., Carro, Asch and Wallach, JJ.
|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                  
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History:                                                   
|                                                                
|U.S. Residual Fuel Oil Consumed at Refineries (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                
|                                                                
|U.S. Residual Fuel Oil Consumed at Refineries (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 15,689 | 12,760 | 13,301 | 11,733
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 10,645 | 10,597 | 10,196 | 10,460 | 9,680  | 8,605  | 8,718  | 7,816  | 6,529  | 5,862 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 5,596  | 6,331  | 4,814  | 3,247  | 2,198  | 2,207  | 2,018  | 1,844  | 1,390  | 1,249 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 980    | 759    | 540    | 443    | 413    | 395    | 274    | 247    | 257    | 26    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 34     | 32     | 42     | 46     |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Valrico Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jerry
L. Ball, Executive Vice President and CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company. Jerry L. Ball
EVP/CFO
May 14, 2004
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 27

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating

to voluntary school prayer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. EMERSON (for himself and Mr. HANSEN) introduced the following joint

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States relating to voluntary school prayer.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the

5 Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to

6 all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if rati7 fied by the legislatures of at least three-fourths of the sev8 eral States within seven years from the date of its proposal

9 to the States by the Congress:
2

HJ 27 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to

3 prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or

4 other public institutions. No person shall be required by

5 the United States or by any State to participate in prayer.

6 Neither the United States nor any State shall prescribe

7 the content of any such prayer.’’

Æ
Case 2:22-cr-00045-Z-BR Document 31 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 66