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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000942787
<NAME> STORMEDIA INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,324
<SECURITIES>                                    34,672
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                       760
<INVENTORY>                                     13,503
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,292
<PP&E>                                         149,780
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,476
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 242,498
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,864
<BONDS>                                         50,027
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           231
<OTHER-SE>                                     154,376
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   242,498
<SALES>                                        160,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               160,383
<CGS>                                          130,938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  130,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,235
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,267
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,131
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,136
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45
        

</TABLE>
----

(2004/C 84 E/1017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0944/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   Components of small toys in food products

Given the accident statistics involving child suffocation by toys made up of small components, and specifically those to be found in food products.

Given the fact that the recommended age limit for these products is extremely low (normally age three) and that according to paediatricians children between the age of three and five tend to put any objects within their reach in their mouths.

Given that products of this type have been banned in the USA for decades, due to the inherent danger they represent.

Given that most European manufacturers do not sell this type of product.

Would the Commission, as part of its revision of the Toys Directive, consider:

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2004)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the draft proposal for a revision of Council Directive 88/378/EEC of 3 May 1988 on the safety of toys (1) is for the moment being discussed, in the framework of the Expert Group on the safety of toys, with the Member States, the associations of consumers and industry as well as with the standardisation organisations. The issue of toys contained in foodstuffs is, therefore, open for discussion in this context.

In general, it must be remembered that it is important for the intellectual development of children above a certain age, that they are able to play with toys containing small parts. The possible need for requirements for toys contained in foodstuffs can, however, in principle be addressed by provisions on age limits. Toys should only be marketed in combination with food if they are suitable for the age group that is likely to be the user. The possibility of clarification as regards the appropriate clearly legible warnings of the choking hazards on these products is also being examined.

Furthermore, in the context of the standardisation process which involves the participation of Member States and stakeholders, certain relevant questions can be addressed, like the possible need to change the cylinder test for small parts.

An impact assessment study on the revision of the Toys Directive is being carried out for the moment to examine the appropriate changes needed to the current Toys Directive.

----

(1)OJ L 187, 16.7.1988.

----
IA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 304

Designating May 1994 as ‘‘Older Americans Month’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1994

Mr. HUGHES (for himself and Mr. REGULA) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil

Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating May 1994 as ‘‘Older Americans Month’’.

Whereas older Americans have contributed many years of

service to their families, their communities, and the Nation;

Whereas the population of the United States contains a large

percentage of older Americans, who have a wealth of

knowledge and experience;

Whereas older Americans should be acknowledged for the

contributions they continue to make to their communities

and the Nation; and

Whereas many States and communities acknowledge the contributions of older Americans during the month of May:

Now, therefore, be it
2

•HJ 304 IH

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in recognition of the traditional designation of the

4 month of May as ‘‘Older Americans Month’’ and the re5 peated expression by the Congress of its appreciation and

6 respect for the achievements of older Americans and its

7 desire that older Americans continue to play an active role

8 in the life of the Nation, May 1994 is designated as ‘‘Older

9 Americans Month’’, and the President is authorized and

10 requested to issue a proclamation calling on the people of

11 the United States to observe the month with appropriate

12 programs, ceremonies, and activities.

Æ
Case 6:22-cv-00049-H Document 80 Filed 12/22/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1939
Case 6:22-cv-00049-H Document 80 Filed 12/22/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1940
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 14

- 00879

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 2001

- 25797

Style: In re Tracy Gibbs

Date motion filed * : Nov. 4, 2014

Type of motion: Extension of Time to File Response

Party filing motion: Real Parties i n Interest

Document to be filed: Response

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: 11/4/14

Number of previous extensions granted: 0

Date Requested: 10 days

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

The Court will not grant additional mo tions to extend time.

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other Granted, in part

Response is due Monday, Nov. 10, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.

Judge's signatu re: /s/ Sherry Radack

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: November 4, 2014
Order entered January 22, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01229
- CR VICKY RENEE MILLER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 366
- 81422
- 2012



### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether ap pellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial co urt shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effect ive representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 26370.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 15, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge,

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, á fine of $50.

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

All the proceedings appearing regular and nothing being. presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
-Enclosure2SIPCompletenessChecklistISTATEIMPLEMENTATIONPLANCOMPLETENESSCHECKLISTSUBMITTALOFSTATEIMPLEMENTATIONPLAN(SIP)REVISION2012FivePercentPlanforPM10fortheMaricopaCountyNonattainmentArea1.SUBMITTALLETTERFROMGOVERNQR/DESIGNESeecoverletter2.EVIDENCEOFADOPTIONSeecoverletter3STATELEGALAUTHORITYFORADOPTION/MMENTA11ONSeeAppendixFforoertifiedcopiesofArizonaRevisedStatuteslistedincoverletter.4.COMPLETECOPYOFACTUALREGULATIONSeeAppeidixFforcertifiedcopiesofArizonaRevisedStatuteslistedincoverletter.5.EVIDENCETHATARIZONAADMiNISTRATIVEPROCEDUREACTREQUIREMENTS(ARS§41-1021through1036)WEREMETFORRULESeeEnclosure1.6EVIDENCEOFPUBLICHEARINGPER40CFR51102SeeEnclosure1.7PUBLICCOMMENTSANDAGENCYRESPONSESeeEnclosure1.8.IDENTIFICATIONOFPOLLUTANTSREGULATEDBYRULEParticulateMatter10micronsandsmallerinsize(PM1O)9.IDENTIFICATIONOFSOURCES/ATTAINMENTSTATUSSeeEnclosure1--

# 10. WREN SUMMARY

OF RULE/RULE

CHANGE Not applicable. 11. RULE CHANGES iNDICATED

BY UNDER

INING

AND CROSS-OUTS Not applicable. 12 RULE’S EFFECT

ON EMISSIONS•\VVVV 

# See Enclosure

1 13 DEMONSTRATION

THAT NAAQS,

PSD INCREMENTS

AND

RFP ARE PROTECTED See Enclosure

1 14. EVIDENCE

THAT EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS

ARE BASED

ON CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY Not applicable. 15. MODELING

SUPPORT See Enclos

ire

1 16. IDENTIFICATION

OF RULE SECTIONS CONTAINING

EMISSION

LIMITS, WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS,

AND/OR RECORD KEEPING/REPORTING REQUIREMENTS See Enclosure

1 and Appendix

F for certified

copies

of Arizona
Revised

Statutes

listed

in cover

letter

for approval. 17. COMPLIANCE/ENFORCEMENT

STRATEGIES See Enclosure

1, Dust Action General

Permit

in Appendix

B, and companion

MAG

2012 Five Percent

Plan

for PM-

10 for

the Maricopa Nonattainment

Area. 18 ECONOMIC TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION

FOR DEVIATION

FROM

EPA POLICIESV 

# No known deviation

from

EPA policy.
#### SALINAS v. STATE.

No. 22400.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 24, 1943.

H. L. Yates, of Brownsville, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for assault with intent to murder; punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Case 1:22-cr-00054-H-BU Document 185 Filed 05/18/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 585
Case 1:22-cr-00054-H-BU Document 185 Filed 05/18/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 586
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29762]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster #3306]


State of Michigan

    Genesee County and the contiguous counties of Lapeer, Livingston, 
Oakland, Saginaw, Shiawassee, and Tuscola in the State of Michigan 
constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by heavy rains and 
flooding that occurred on September 22-23, 2000. Applications for loans 
for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the 
close of business on January 2, 2001 and for economic injury until the 
close of business on August 1, 2001 at the address listed below or 
other locally announced locations:

U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One 
Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308.

    The interest rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
    Homeowners with credit available elsewhere...............      7.375
    Homeowners without credit available elsewhere............      3.687
    Businesses with credit available elsewhere...............      8.000
    Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit         4.000
     available elsewhere.....................................
    Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit        6.750
     available elsewhere.....................................
For Economic Injury:
    Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without         4.000
     credit available elsewhere..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The numbers assigned to this disaster are 330606 for physical 
damage and 9J4600 for economic injury.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: November 1, 2000.
Fred P. Hochberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-29762 Filed 11-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Views of the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency 

Under Section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Council may determine that a nonbank financial 

company will be supervised by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and be subject to 

enhanced prudential standards if it determines that: 

1. Material financial distress at the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the 

financial stability of the United States; or 

2. The nature, scope, size, scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of activities of 

the nonbank financial company could pose a threat to the financial stability of the 

United States. 

The Council may subject a nonbank financial company to Board of Governors supervision and 

prudential standards if either of these two statutory standards is met. 

As the Council’s decision to rescind Prudential’s designation clearly states: “The Council made 

its final determination with respect to Prudential under the first standard for a determination 

under section 113(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act—that material financial distress at Prudential could 

pose a threat to U.S. financial stability.” Consequently, no evaluation of whether Prudential 

meets the criteria in the second standard has ever been made. 

I concur with the Council’s determination that Prudential no longer meets the standard for 

designation under the first criteria and therefore should be de-designated under that criteria. 

However, I continue to be concerned that no independent evaluation has been made by FSOC 

under the second standard. As I said in my AIG dissent, “Congress obviously intended for the 

second standard to be regarded as on equal legal footing with the first standard and 

understood that it would be possible for a company to be ‘too big to fail’ even if it passed the 

test set out in the first standard and was not experiencing financial distress.” 

Because I believe Prudential would also qualify for de-designation under the second standard if 

it were evaluated under that standard, I will vote today to de-designate Prudential. However, I 

believe it is important for me to reiterate in writing the view I have previously expressed that I 

believe FSOC has an obligation to look independently at both standards in the process of 

deciding whether to designate or to de-designation a company in order to fairly comply with 

the provisions of Section 113 of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

This 16th day of October, 2018. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Melvin L. Watt, 

Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency
Agenda 

February 2004 Refunding 

Treasury Dealer Meetings – January 30, 2004 

Dealer ___________________

To allow more time for discussion on Friday, please e-mail your responses prior to 4:00 p.m. on 

Thursday, January 29, to debt.managament@do.treas.gov. If you are not scheduled to meet with 

Treasury officials this quarter, your responses would still be very helpful to us, particularly answers to 

the discussion questions. Thank you. 

I. Borrowing Estimates 

Central 

Estimate 

Range that would 

not surprise you 

January – March 

 Ending Cash Balance 

April – June 

 Ending Cash Balance 

II. Budget Deficit Estimates 

FY2004 

FY2005 

III. Quarterly Note Issuance 

3-year – February 

5-year – February 

5-year – March 

5-year – April 

10-year- February 

10-year reopening- March 

10-year TIPS – April 

IV. Discussion Topics 

• Please briefly elaborate on the estimates of our financing needs provided above. Do you see 

any risks to the current issuance calendar? If so, when do you think Treasury will need to 

make changes? 

• Treasury believes that financing at the lowest cost over time requires a broad and deep 

investor base. To meet this objective, Treasury issues across the nominal yield curve and is 

expanding the TIPS market. We would like your thoughts on the balance between our 

current long-term issuance and the expansion of the TIPS market. 

Treasury's current nominal issuance, if continued, would ultimately skew our debt portfolio 

towards 5- and 10-year notes. How has the increased supply of 5-year and 10-year notes 

affected the primary and secondary markets? What would be the effect of substituting a 20-

year TIPS for nominal issuance? 
2

• How would you characterize the current structure of demand for Treasury securities? How 

has it evolved in recent years? Do you consider recent trends as permanent or temporary? 

What are the implications, if any, for market liquidity or efficiency?
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00081-Z-BR

§

EFRAIN OLIVAS-LOPEZ (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

EFRAIN OLIVAS-LOPEZ (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 EFRAIN OLIVAS-LOPEZ (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 EFRAIN OLIVAS-LOPEZ (1) be adjudged guilty of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1); and 6 

U.S.C. §§ 202(3), 202(4), and 557 - ILLEGAL RE-ENTRY AFTER DEPORTATION 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: August 29, 2022

______________________________________

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-00081-Z-BR Document 28 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 51
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 259

Concerning United States policy towards Somalia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 13, 1993

Mr. GILMAN (for himself and Mr. SOLOMON) introduced the following joint

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

JOINT RESOLUTION

Concerning United States policy towards Somalia.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

4 The Congress makes the following findings:

5 (1) United States Armed Forces made signifi6 cant contributions under Operation Restore Hope to7 wards the establishment of a secure environment for

8 humanitarian relief operations and restoration of
2

•HJ 259 IH

1 peace in the region to end the humanitarian disaster

2 that had claimed more than 300,000 lives.

3 (2) The mission of United States Armed Forces

4 in support of the United Nations appears to be

5 evolving from the establishment of ‘‘a secure envi6 ronment for humanitarian relief operations,’’ as set

7 out in United Nations Security Council Resolution

8 794 of December 3, 1992, to one of internal security

9 and nation building.

10 SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.

11 (a) CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESS.—The

12 President should consult closely with the Congress regard13 ing United States policy with respect to Somalia, including

14 in particular the deployment of United States Armed

15 Forces in that country, whether under United Nations or

16 United States command.

17 (b) PLANNING.—The United States shall facilitate

18 the assumption of the functions of United States Armed

19 Forces by the United Nations.

20 (c) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—

21 (1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall ensure

22 that the goals and objectives supporting deployment

23 of United States Armed Forces to Somalia and a de24 scription of the mission, command arrangements,

25 size, functions, location, and anticipated duration in
3

•HJ 259 IH

1 Somalia of those forces are clearly articulated and

2 provided in a detailed report to the Congress by

3 October 15, 1993.

4 (2) INCLUSION OF STATUS OF TRANSFER OF

5 FUNCTIONS.—Such report shall include the status of

6 planning to transfer the functions contained in sub7 section (b).

8 (d) CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.—Upon reporting

9 under the requirements of subsection (c), the Congress be10 lieves the President should by November 15, 1993, seek

11 and receive congressional authorization in order for the

12 deployment of United States Armed Forces to Somalia to

13 continue.

Æ
Case 5:22-cr-00082-H-BQ Document 37 Filed 12/22/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 77