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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ICG COMMUNICATIONS,  INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
FOR THE SIX MONTHS  ENDED JUNE 30,  1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                              615,494
<SECURITIES>                         16,000
<RECEIVABLES>                       116,797
<ALLOWANCES>                         10,263
<INVENTORY>                           3,426
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    754,228
<PP&E>                              998,615
<DEPRECIATION>                      203,914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,732,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               154,653
<BONDS>                           1,577,746
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               442,437
<PREFERRED>                            0<F1>
<COMMON>                                747
<OTHER-SE>                         (442,951)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       1,732,632
<SALES>                                0<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    261,923
<CGS>                                  0<F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       186,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    186,565
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      4,982
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   76,875
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (175,779)
<INCOME-TAX>                             25
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (202,591)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0<F1>
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0<F1>
<CHANGES>                              0<F1>
<NET-INCOME>                       (202,591)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (4.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>THIS VALUE IS NOT APPLICABLE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### LAMONOCO v. STATE.

No. 16099.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 1, 1933.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1934.

■ Henry Juergens and Hughes & Monroe, all of Dallas, for appellant.

*318Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Oonviction for theft; punishment, three yearsi in the penitentiary.

The record is here without any bills of exception or complaint® of procedure. The facts sufficiently show that on a certain day a salesman of automobile accessories loaded up his truck with several hundred dollars worth of such goods in Dallas, Tex., and started out to make his daily run. In one of the suburbs of Dallas where he left his truck for a few minutes it disappeared with its valuable contents. Some time during that day, or in a day or two later, appellant turned up with the truck and its contents, most of the latter of which he disposed of for a consideration of $200. It was shown that he was in the vicinity of the place where the truck was left at the time of its disappearance. Appellant attempted to establish an alibi. Settlement of conflicting testimony is a question for the jury, and we think there is sufficient testimony in this case to justify the jury in making settlement of same adverse to the claim of not guilty.

The judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The motion for rehearing asserts that the evidence is insufficient and that the state’s witness, J. E. Marshall, was an accomplice as a matter of law. These matters were considered upon the original hearing. The evidence not embraced in the original opinion may be briefly summarized as follows: The appellant, a short time after the property was stolen, sold it to the witness Marshall. Some time later, officers in search of the property discovered it in the possession of Marshall, who had it on display in his public place of business. Marshall told the officers that he had bought the property from the appellant, stating the circumstances in detail. He denied that at the time of the purchase of the property he had any information which would advise him that it was stolen.

Marshall and his wife both testified upon the trial. His testimony was in accord with the above statement that they purchased the property without any knowledge that it was stolen. His wife corroborated him with reference to his putting it immediately upon display.

The appellant did not testify upon the. trial.

The court gave a charge on accomplice testimony in accord with article 718, C. O. P., instructing the jury to disregard Marshall’s testimony unless'the corroboration was sufficient.

The facts, if believed, are manifestly sufficient to support the verdict. Marshall’s explanation as to how the property came into his possession and the manner in which he treated it after receiving it are deemed sufficient to justify the submission to the jury of the question as to whether Marshall was an accomplice and to support the finding of the jury that he was not an accomplice.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ICT LAW AND TECHNOLOGY GROUP 

PLLC, FKA John Doe, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SEATREE PLLC, organized under the laws 

of the State of Washington as a professional 

limited liability company (PLLC); et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35945 

D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01681-TSZ 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Thomas S. Zilly, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

ICT Law & Technology Group PLLC, FKA John Doe (“ICT”) appeals from 

the district court’s judgment dismissing its action alleging 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claims. We have 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 31 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35945 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 

2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed ICT’s action because ICT failed to 

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 

F.3d 541, 547-48, 553-54 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (elements of RICO claim; 

RICO fraud allegations are subject to heightened pleading standard under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)); George v. Pac.–CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227, 

1229 (9th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff alleging infringement of constitutional rights by 

private parties must show that the infringement constitutes state action); see also

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint 

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face” and conclusory allegations are not entitled to be 

assumed true) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying ICT’s motions for 

reconsideration because ICT failed to set forth any basis for relief from the 

judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 

1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for 

relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b)). 

We reject as without merit ICT’s contention that the district court erred in its 
3 18-35945 

disposition of ICT’s motion for declaratory relief and motions for partial summary 

judgment, or in its denial of a telephonic conference. 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See 

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 

921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2795 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 14, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit 

a study on the circumstances which may impact the 

effectiveness and availability of first responders before, 

during, or after a terrorist threat or event. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2795 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘First Responder Iden3 tification of Emergency Needs in Disaster Situations’’ or 

4 the ‘‘FRIENDS Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY IMPACT FIRST RE6 SPONDERS DURING A TERRORIST EVENT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the 

8 date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 

9 of the United States shall submit to the Committee on 

10 Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and 

11 the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

12 Affairs of the Senate a report that describes select State 

13 and local programs and policies, as appropriate, related 

14 to the preparedness and protection of first responders. 

15 The report may include information on— 

16 (1) the degree to which such programs and poli17 cies include consideration of the presence of a first 

18 responder’s family in an area impacted by a terrorist 

19 attack; 

20 (2) the availability of personal protective equip21 ment for first responders; 

22 (3) the availability of home Medkits for first re23 sponders and their families for biological incident re24 sponse; and 

25 (4) other related factors. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2795 RFS 

1 (b) CONTEXT.—In preparing the report required 

2 under subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the 

3 United States may, as appropriate, provide information— 

4 (1) in a format that delineates high risk urban 

5 areas from rural communities; and 

6 (2) on the degree to which the selected State 

7 and local programs and policies included in the re8 port were developed or are being executed with fund9 ing from the Department of Homeland Security, in10 cluding grant funding from the State Homeland Se11 curity Grant Program or the Urban Area Security 

12 Initiative under sections 2002 and 2003, respec13 tively, of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 

14 U.S.C. 603 and 604). 

15 (c) HOMELAND SECURITY CONSIDERATION.—After 

16 issuance of the report required under subsection (a), the 

17 Secretary of Homeland Security shall consider the report’s 

18 findings and assess its applicability for Federal first re19 sponders. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 10, 

2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IB 

Union Calendar No. 424 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 295 

[Report No. 114–549] 

To reauthorize the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Historic 

Preservation program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 13, 2015 

Mr. CLYBURN (for himself, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Ms. ADAMS, Ms. BASS, Mrs. 

BEATTY, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mr. CARSON

of Indiana, Ms. CLARKE of New York, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. 

CONYERS, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. 

EDWARDS, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. FATTAH, Ms. FUDGE, Mr. AL GREEN of 

Texas, Mr. HASTINGS, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. JEFFRIES, Ms. EDDIE

BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. KELLY of 

Illinois, Mrs. LAWRENCE, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. MEEKS, Ms. MOORE, 

Ms. NORTON, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. PLASKETT, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. RICHMOND, 

Mr. RUSH, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. SEWELL of Alabama, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. VEASEY, Ms. MAXINE WATERS of California, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, and Ms. WILSON of 

Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

MAY 10, 2016 

Additional sponsors: Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. JUDY CHU of California, 

Mr. SERRANO, and Ms. MCCOLLUM

MAY 10, 2016 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on January 13, 2015] 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 295 RH

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities Historic Preservation program. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 295 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVER4 SITIES HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM 

5 REAUTHORIZED. 

6 Section 507(d)(2) of the Omnibus Parks and Public 

7 Lands Management Act of 1996 (54 U.S.C. 302101 note) 

8 is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting 

9 ‘‘and each of fiscal years 2017 through 2023.’’. 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 424 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 295 

[Report No. 114–549] 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities Historic Preservation program. 

MAY 10, 2016 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                   P & F INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                 EXHIBIT 11

            SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

                        YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             FULLY
                                               PRIMARY      DILUTED
                                             ----------    ----------
<S>                                          <C>           <C>
Net income                                   $1 491 975    $1 491 975

Dividends on preferred stock                   (263 345)     (263 345)
                                             ----------    ----------
                                              1 228 630     1 228 630
Addback to net income of decrease
  in interest expense resulting
  from assumed use of proceeds
  from exercise of options to
  reduce outstanding debt                        20 279        18 042
                                             ----------    ----------
Net income for earnings per
  common share                               $1 248 909    $1 246 672
                                             ----------    ----------
                                             ----------    ----------

Weighted average number of common
  shares outstanding during the year          2 928 867     2 928 867

Common share equivalents - shares
  issuable upon exercise of stock
  options                                       383 768       383 413
                                             ----------    ----------
Weighted average number of common
  shares and common share equivalents
  used in calculation of earnings
  per common share                            3 312 635     3 312 280
                                             ----------    ----------
                                             ----------    ----------

Earnings per common share                         $ .38         $ .38
                                                  -----         -----
                                                  -----         -----
</TABLE>
Exhibit 24.6
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
  (1)
    
    To execute for and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigneds
capacity as a director and/or officer of Spartech Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the Company), Form 10-K in accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules thereunder;(2)
    
    To do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned which
may be necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 10-K complete
and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and timely file such form with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any stock exchange or similar
authority; and(3)
    
    To take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the
foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit to, in
the best interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being understood
that the documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the undersigned
pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and shall contain such
terms and conditions as such attorney-in-fact may approve in such
attorney-in-facts discretion.
   th
 /s/ Pamela F. LenehanSignaturePamela F. LenehanPrint Name
FIRST COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIESExhibit 16.1 Change in Certifying Accountant  March 21, 2003Securities and Exchange CommissionMail Stop 11-3450 5th Street N.W.Washington, DC 20549Dear Sirs/Madams:We have read Item 9 of First Commonwealth Financial Corporation’s Form 10-K filed on March 21, 2003, and have the followingcomments:1.   We agree with the statement made in the last sentence of the first paragraph and with the statements in the second,third and fourth paragraphs therein.2.   We have no basis on which to agree or disagree with the other statements made in the first paragraph.Yours truly,/S/Deloitte & Touche LLPPittsburgh, Pennsylvania96
# C_2022188EN.01000101.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 188/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 188/1

---

Corrigendum to Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (2022/C 131/05)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 131 of 24 March 2022
  )

(2022/C 188/01)

On page 5, in the second column of the table:

for:

‘27 March 2022’,

read:

‘17 March 2022’.

---
# C_2022160EN.01001001.xml

| 13.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/10

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10637 – CERTAS / ENGIE SOLUTIONS / SSEC JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 160/03)

On 23 March 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10637. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10637. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 23(d)



                        [PRATOR BETT, L.L.C. LETTERHEAD]



                         CONSENT OF PRATOR BETT, L.L.C.

As oil and gas consultants, we hereby consent to the use of our name and our
report dated November 1, 2004 in this Form 10-K, incorporated by reference into
Peoples Energy Corporation's previously filed Registration Statement File Nos.
333-84594 and 333-70702 on Form S-3, and 2-82760, 33-6369, 033-63193, 333-62070,
333-113204 and 333-116192 on Form S-8.

                                               Prator Bett, L.L.C.

                                               By /s/ M. Drayton Prator, III
                                                  ------------------------------

                                               M. Drayton Prator, III, PE

                                               Partner


Houston, Texas
December 14, 2004
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ RESOURCE INVESTMENTS , INC. AND LAND RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,
v. UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellee

.

______________________ 2014

- 5069

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:98

- cv - 00419

- LB, Judge Lawrence J. Block.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESOURCE INVESTMENTS , INC. AND LAND RECOVERY, INC., Plaintiffs

- Appellees ,
v. UNITED STATES, Defendant

- Appellant

.

______________________ 2014

- 5099

______________________ Case: 14-5069 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 08/27/2014RESOURCE INVESTMENTS , INC
. v. US 2

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:98

- cv - 00419

- LB, Judge Lawrence J. Block.

______________________ ON MOTION

______________________ O R D E R Upon consideration of the United States ’ unopposed motion to dismiss appeal no. 2014

- 5099 , I T I S O RDERED T HAT : ( 1) The motion to dismiss appeal no. 2014

- 5099 is granted. Appeal no. 2014

- 5099 is dismissed. Each side shall bear its own costs in appeal no. 2014

- 5099

. (2) The revised official caption in 2014

- 5069 is r eflected above. F OR THE C OURT /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s26
ISSUED AS A MANDATE (As to 2014

- 5099 only): August 27, 2014 Case: 14-5069 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 08/27/2014