alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 3 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
 

Page 4 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 5 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 6 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 7 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
 

 

 

Page 8 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
 

 

Page 9 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
 

Page 10 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 11 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 12 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 13 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 14 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 15 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
 

Page 16 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 17 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 18 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 19 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
 

Page 20 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 21 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 22 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 23 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 24 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 25 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 26 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 27 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 28 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 29 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 30 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
Page 31 of 31 EPA SANITIZED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      10,945,621
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               34,864,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,103,987
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            47,612,075
<PP&E>                                      31,542,234
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,162,725
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              76,334,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,124,346
<BONDS>                                      5,749,468
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       200,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,153,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                76,334,062
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            63,591,807
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               41,020,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,791,828
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               875,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             783,437
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,343,616
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,543,266 <F1>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,800,350 <F2>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22 <F2> 
<FN>
<F1> - REPRESENTS PRO FORMA PROVISION FOR INCOME TAXES RELATING TO S     
CORPORATION. SEE NOTE 4 OF NOTES TO CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.      
<F2> - AMOUNTS ARE PRESENTED ON A PRO FORMA BASIS ASSUMING CONVERSION FROM 
AN S CORPORATION.  SEE NOTE 4 OF NOTES TO CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Filed 4/16/15 P. v. Gonzales CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
STEVEN RAY GONZALES,
Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B259141 (Super. Ct. No . 2011022408) (Ventura County)

Appellant Steven Ray Gonzales pled guilty to theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)) 1 and was sentenced to 16 m onths in state prison. In 2012, he was placed on post-release community supervision (PRCS). (§ 3456.) He subsequently had several
PRCS violations for which he served time in jail or in a reside ntial drug treatment

program. In 2014, appellant requested that the trial court vacate a previously imposed
PRCS no-contact order so that he could have contact with his pregnant girlfriend and child, whose birth is expected in May 2015. Upon the probation department's recommendation, the court denied the request without prejudice to its renewal once the child is born. Appellant filed a timely no tice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent him.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 Appellant stole copper wire from a ra ilroad yard. There was evidence that his girlfriend was with him at the time of the theft. Appointed counsel filed a brief ra ising no issues and requesting our independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On January 23, 2015, we notified appellant that he had 30 days in which to advise us of any claims he
wished us to consider. We have received no response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully comp lied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124; People v. Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) The judgment (order) is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.3 Brian J. Back, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura

________________ ______________

California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Execut ive Director, and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7235
STEVEN M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM D. SCHAEFER, Governor; COMMISSIONER LANHAM; WARDEN BESHEARS; CAPTAIN BURKEHART; LIEUTENANT DENNIS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge. (CA-94-3153-JFM, CA-94-3267-JFM) Submitted: November 28, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Steven M. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Johnson v. Schaefer , Nos. CA-94-3153-JFM; CA-94-3267-JFM (D. Md. Aug. 1, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1
                   [OUTTRIM SZABO ASSOCIATES LTD. LETTERHEAD]


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



                 We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
Pennzoil Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 Nos.
2-67268, 2-76935, 2-95869, 33-24261, 33-40192, 33-51473, 33-53783 and 33-63384
and on Form S-3 Nos. 33-50029 and 33-50953 of our summary report dated February
5, 1996 included as Exhibit 99(b) to this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the
data extracted from our reports and the references to our firm appearing in
"Item 1. Business and Item 2.  Properties" under the captions "Oil and Gas - Oil
and Gas Reserves" and in "Supplemental Financial and Statistical Information -
Unaudited - Oil and Gas Information" in such Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                        OUTTRIM SZABO ASSOCIATES LTD.



                                        /s/ COLIN P. OUTTRIM
                                        _______________________________
Calgary, Alberta, Canada                    Colin P. Outtrim, P.Eng.
February 22, 1996                           President
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8221** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. BREON LEE MAYO , Defendant

– Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dist rict of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Jerome B. Friedman , District Judge. ( 2 : 06

- cr - 00116

- JBF

- FBS

- 1

Submitted : July 22, 2010 Decided: July 29, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.

Breo n Lee Mayo, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Breon Lee Mayo appeals the district court’s order deny ing his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and agree with the district court’s conclusion that Mayo was not eligible for a sentence reduction because he was found responsible for more than 4.5 kil ograms of crack cocaine. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Mayo , No. 2:06

- cr 00116

- JBF

- FBS

- 1 (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 1, 2009 & entered
Dec. 2, 2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions a re adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
Amendment to John Zavoli Restricted Stock Award Agreement



 Exhibit 10.71 
  
 AMENDMENT OF 
 RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment of
Restricted Stock Award Agreement is between Path 1 Network Technologies Inc. (“Path 1”) and John Zavoli (“Zavoli”) as of August 31, 2004. It amends the Restricted Stock Award Agreement between the parties dated October 23, 2003
(the “Stock Agreement”). 
  
 1. The last sentence of
Section 3(b) of the Stock Agreement is amended to read in full as follows: 
  
 Should any vesting date occur on a day during a “closed window period,” where Participant would be restricted from trading Company shares, then the vesting date shall be deemed to occur two weeks immediately
after the termination of such closed window period. 
  
 2. Except
as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Stock Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect. 
  
 3. The parties acknowledge that they have the right to have been represented by legal counsel of their own choosing, and that Heller Ehrman White &
McAuliffe LLP and Hayden Trubitt are representing Path 1 and are not representing Zavoli. 
  

			
	 /s/    John R. Zavoli

 JOHN ZAVOLI

	
	PATH 1 NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/    John R. Zavoli
	 	 	John Zavoli, Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 77137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21479]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2348-000]


Notice of Authorization for Continued Project Operation; Midwest 
Hydro, LLC

    The license for the Beloit Hydroelectric Project No. 2348 was 
issued for a period ending August 31, 2024.
    Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the 
Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-
year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the 
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other 
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived 
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) 
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth 
at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an 
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to 
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the 
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the 
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project 
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be 
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations 
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or 
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2348 is issued to 
Midwest Hydro, LLC for a period effective September 1, 2024, through 
August 31, 2025, or until the issuance of a new license for the project 
or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.
    If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take 
place on or before August 31, 2025, notice is hereby given that, 
pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) 
of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by 
the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is 
hereby given that Midwest Hydro, LLC is authorized to continue 
operation of the Beloit Hydroelectric Project under the terms and 
conditions of the prior license until the issuance of a subsequent 
license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever 
comes first.

    Dated: September 13, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-21479 Filed 9-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 4 

USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 1 of 11
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 2 of 11
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 3 of 11
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 4 of 11
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 5 of 11
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 6 of 11
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 7 of 11
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 8 of 11
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 9 of 11
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 10 of 11
USCA Case #11-1131 Document #1330427 Filed: 09/19/2011 Page 11 of 11
#### Ex parte WILLIAMS.

No. 18683.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 14, 1936.

O. M. Street, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

Relator is held by virtue of a warrant issued by the Governor of the State of Texas upon requisition by the Governor of the State of Oklahoma. He sought his release by way of habeas corpus and was remanded to custody by the district court of Dallas county. Hence this appeal.

A complaint, duly sworn to, was filed in a justice court of Okfuskee county, state of Oklahoma, on the 13th of February, 1936, charging relator with the offense of swindling, which is alleged to have been committed on the 5th day of September, 1935. In the habeas corpus proceeding in the district court of Dallas county, relator introduced witnesses who gave testimony tending to show that he was not in the state of Oklahoma on the alleged date of the commission of the offense, but was in the state of Texas. Witnesses for the respondent took issue with relator and testified to his presence in the demanding state on'said date.

In the cases of Ex parte Hogue, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 495, 17 S.W.(2d) 1047, and Ex parte Baird, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 602, 17 S.W.(2d) 1049, the proof was uncontroverted that the alleged fugitive was not within the confines of the demanding state on the alleged date of the commission of the offense. Under the circumstances, this court held that he could not be a fugitive from justice within the terms of the law. The holding in said cases is not applicable to the situation in the present case, in view of the fact that the proof on the part of the respondent herein was. sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the relator was within the confines of the state of Oklahoma on the alleged date of the commission of the offense. See Ex parte Loos (Tex.Cr.App.) 81 S.W.(2d) 527.

Believing that relator was properly remanded, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             724
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,996
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    122,190
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                         92,036
<ALLOWANCE>                                        500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 227,691
<DEPOSITS>                                     148,163
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             21,146
<LONG-TERM>                                     32,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 227,691
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,163
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,781
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,944
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,735
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,251
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,693
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  76
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,683
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,120
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.87
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   500
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  500
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 269 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 269

  To prohibit certain real property from being named after a sitting 
                          Member of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2015

  Mr. Turner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit certain real property from being named after a sitting 
                          Member of Congress.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Prohibiting Taxpayer-Funded 
Monuments to Members of Congress Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON NAMING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AFTER MEMBER OF 
              CONGRESS.

    (a) Prohibition.--Real property under the jurisdiction of the 
Federal Government, or constructed using Federal funds, shall not be 
named after, or otherwise officially identified by the name of, any 
individual who is a Member of Congress at the time the property is so 
named or identified.
    (b) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``Member of Congress'' includes a Delegate or 
        Resident Commissioner to the Congress.
            (2) The term ``real property'' includes structures, 
        buildings, or other infrastructure.
    (c) Application of Section.--The prohibition in this section shall 
apply only with respect to real property named after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2022438EN.01000101.xml

| 18.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 438/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 438/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10893 – QUATTROR / IMTC / MTD)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 438/01)

On 25 October 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 32022M10893. 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 32022M10893. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00127-CR

MICKY DON WADE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 89th District 

Court

of Wichita County (59,642-C*1-5)

October 1, 2020

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM