alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2143 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2143

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                                 An Act

 
   To provide for the authority for the successors and assigns of the 
   Starr-Camargo Bridge Company to maintain and operate a toll bridge 
    across the Rio Grande near Rio Grande City, Texas, and for other 
                                purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. STARR-CAMARGO BRIDGE.
    Public Law 87-532 (76 Stat. 153) is amended--
        (1) in the first section, in subsection (a)(2)--
            (A) by inserting ``, and its successors and assigns,'' 
        after ``State of Texas'';
            (B) by inserting ``consisting of not more than 14 lanes'' 
        after ``approaches thereto''; and
            (C) by striking ``and for a period of sixty-six years from 
        the date of completion of such bridge,'';
        (2) in section 2, by inserting ``and its successors and 
    assigns,'' after ``companies'';
        (3) by redesignating sections 3, 4, and 5 as sections 4, 5, and 
    6, respectively;
        (4) by inserting after section 2 the following:
``SEC. 3. RIGHTS OF STARR-CAMARGO BRIDGE COMPANY AND SUCCESSORS AND 
ASSIGNS.
    ``(a) In General.--The Starr-Camargo Bridge Company and its 
successors and assigns shall have the rights and privileges granted to 
the B and P Bridge Company and its successors and assigns under section 
2 of the Act of May 1, 1928 (45 Stat. 471, chapter 466).
    ``(b) Requirement.--In exercising the rights and privileges granted 
under subsection (a), the Starr-Camargo Bridge Company and its 
successors and assigns shall act in accordance with--
        ``(1) just compensation requirements;
        ``(2) public proceeding requirements; and
        ``(3) any other requirements applicable to the exercise of the 
    rights referred to in subsection (a) under the laws of the State of 
    Texas.''; and
        (5) in section 4 (as redesignated by paragraph (3))--
            (A) by inserting ``and its successors and assigns,'' after 
        ``such company'';
            (B) by striking ``or'' after ``public agency,'';
            (C) by inserting ``or to a corporation,'' after 
        ``international bridge authority or commission,''; and
            (D) by striking ``authority, or commission'' each place it 
        appears and inserting ``authority, commission, or 
        corporation''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
98-913.

#### State v. Green.

Lucas C.P. No. 971450. On motion to supplement record. Motion granted.
• 

OEORE'f 

~~IONaL IMMEf ~J\'l'~ 

L~TN 

.i.OUR 072030 

REF ID:A6121.i 

• 

FOLLO~IThG IS RATHEJ:t HURRIED OUTLINE: 

[Eo 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

A. T:\ELAT:tO~B BFTWEEI~ I I AND RECIPIEHTS OF SIGNAL INTELLIGENC 

oru~CTION TO FRESENT TO RECTP!ENTS SIGINT FACTS IN•· SUI'l'\ABLE FORM 

:.ELECTED .tlCCORDING TO LATTERS '!'iEFD TO KNOW. 11 STGINT FACTS" COVER 

,jELF-EVID~T ITEMS dUCH AS MESSAGE CONTFNT BUT ALSO INFEPENCE FROM 

TRAFFIC J-L~AL'J.SIS AN:i> TECHNICAL SIG INT EVIDENCE GENERALLY PY ALUATION 

IN SENSE OF ~ORKING OUT wIDER IMPLICAmIONS AND COLLATION dITH OTHER 

aouRCES IS PUNCT!ON OF RECIPIENT 

B. :9ASIS OF 3ELECTION FOR PUBLTCATTON SELECTI01'4 IS MADE BYD IN 

LIGHT OF OWN KNO.lLEDGE OF NEEDS BASED 01'1 CONSTANT CONTACT 'tTITH 

RECIPIENTS AT ALL LEVELS AND ~TUDY OF COLLATERAL. DOUBTFUL CASES 

ARE REJECTED 01'1LY AFTFR DISCUSSION 'ITTH ~ECTPTENTS COLL.aTE.RAL 

.r~ND KNO\lLEDGE OF RECIPIENT J\fEEDS IS FFD BAC1< BY OTo EARLIER STAGES 

OF SIGINT PROCESSING. 

c. 0RM JF REPORTS. BALANCE '1AB TO BE STRUO~ BETWEEN DLDUTED 

~ESOURCES AND GENERAL RECIPTENT DEMAND FOR COLLATED AND WELL DIGESTED 

.t-RODUCT. FORM IS DISCUSSED 11ITH REOIPIE1'1TB AND 'llE TRY TO MEET i'JISHES 

AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. FOR Ti!BAMPLE FOREIGN vFFICE wOULD OFTEN FREFER 

COLLATION DIPLO MESSAGES ON A LESS DIPORTANT SUBJECT BUT NE CANNOT 

ALWAYS DO IT Al~D 9:AVE "'C PASS VERBATDd TRANSLATIONS. 

D. UBE OF COLLATERAL !N REPORTS. OTHER SOURCES ARE QUOTED (CHIEFLY 

IN RUSSIAN P/T PRODUCT} TO SUPPLY ODD FACTS WITHOUT ,lHICH SIGINT 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 01-30-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
• 

REF ID:A6127 •

/EO 3 . 3 ( h) ( 2 ) 

. PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

NOT MAKE SEl~SE .a..~D RATHER kORE FREELY AS COMME~TS WHEN :<:NOWLEDGE OF 

THE FACT FROM OTHER .JOUROES IS EBSENTTAL .AND lt.,ACT Th ITSELF BEYOND 

IJOUBT THIS r1~ )RDER TO AVOID PARALIEL &DiSEPAR.ATE Il'-lVESTIGATIONS 

BY ALL RECIPIENTS. EXAMPLES FUNCTION JF/ANAMED .l?ERSO~ALITY, 

.ZEOGRA.PHICAL LOCATION THIS USE OF ~THER SOURCES•IS ClEARLY 

DESIGNATED IN REPORTS. 

E. .c'RIORITIES MACHINERY FOR CO-ORDIUATION OF RECIPIBNTS NEEDS IS 

(A) A ;EARLY LIST FROM THEI I //,F JIOST IMPORTANT dUBJECTS IN 

1

-'RIOPITY ORDER, AME1'1DED DURING IEAR IF NECESSARY 

(B) CONSTANT CONTACT 3ETWEEN DA1•lD RECIPIENTS TO RESOLVE POI1"'TS 

OF DETAIL: 

( C) QUARTERLY MEETINGS OF JUNIOR PO.ARD ( IttTELLIGENOE) 1'0 RELATE 

':'HE LIST AT (A) TO THE CAPABILITIES OF I I: 

(D) IN MAJOR CASES OF DIFFFRENCE ~ETWEEN RECIPIENTS THE SENIOR BOARD 

COUID BE ASKED FOR A RULThG. 

2 11E SHALL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ~UESTIONS 

1011372 

tdEOf:E'f OttFRATIONAL IMMEDIATE I .... ____ r~TN 

1011372 

,. 

2
<PAGE>
 
                                                                  EXHIBIT 11

                           Software AG Systems, Inc.
                       Computation of Earnings Per Share

              (In thousands, except for per share dollar amounts)

                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Predecessor                        Successor
                                                  ------------      ---------------------------------------------
                                                   Three months      Three months    Three months    Six months    
                                                       ended            ended            ended            ended
                                                     Mar. 31,         June 30,         June 30,         June 30,
                                                       1997             1997             1998             1998
                                                   -----------       -----------     ------------     ------------
<S>                                                 <C>               <C>             <C>              <C>
Weighted average common shares outstanding.....         24,338   |        24,338          29,764           29,641
Effect of dilutive securities..................          1,556   |         1,556           2,212            2,150
                                                   -----------   |   -----------     -----------      -----------
Weighted average common shares outstanding -                     |
 assuming dilution.............................         25,894   |        25,894          31,976           31,791
                                                   ===========   |   ===========     ===========      ===========
                                                                 |
Calculation of net income per share:                             |
Net income.....................................    $     1,373   |   $     2,151     $     6,145      $    11,535
                                                   ===========   |   ===========     ===========      ===========
Net income per share...........................    $      0.06   |   $      0.09     $      0.21      $      0.39
                                                   ===========   |   ===========     ===========      ===========
Net income per share - assuming dilution........   $      0.05   |   $      0.08     $      0.19      $      0.36
                                                   ===========   |   ===========     ===========      ===========
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 49 (Friday, March 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05955]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

Agency Holding the Meeting: Federal Maritime Commission.
Time and Date: March 18, 2015; 10:00 a.m.
Place: 800 N. Capitol Street NW., First Floor Hearing Room, 
Washington, DC.
Status: The first portion of the meeting will be held in Open 
Session; the second in Closed Session.
Matters to be Considered:

Open Session

    1. Briefing on Monitoring the Latin American Trades

Closed Session

    1. Briefing on Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services 
Inter-Agency Outreach.
    2. S. 2444--Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation 
Act of 2014.
Contact Person for More Information: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, (202) 
523 5725

Karen V. Gregory,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05955 Filed 3-11-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 10, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 10, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0068. HUBERT PROPERTIES, LLLP et al. v. DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

14105486
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.8


                          Independent Auditors' Consent




The Board of Directors
Wireless Technology Corporations Limited:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (no.
333-35139) on Form S-8, in the Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Form S-4
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (no. 333-18713), in the registration
statement (no. 333-5396) on Form S-3, and in the registration statement (no.
333-5400) on Form S-3 of PLD Telekom Inc. of our report dated March 30, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Wireless Technology Corporations
Limited and subsidiary as of December 31, 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholder's equity, and cash flows for the year then
ended, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1998 of PLD Telekom Inc.

Our report dated February 17, 1999 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company's parent, PLD Telekom Inc. (PLD) does not presently have
sufficient funds on hand to meet its current debt obligations. The Company is a
guarantor of such obligations. PLD's failure to make payment in full when
required could result in a claim being made against the Company under its
guaranty and a cross-default under and acceleration of other debt obligations
for which the Company is also a guarantor. These factors raise substantial doubt
about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated
financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the
outcome of this uncertainty.


                                                  KPMG


Almaty, Kazakhstan
March 30, 1999
..... -

•• 

.,, 

... 

.... 

... 

, .. •' 

1 

2. 

8 8 

·1 

4 

1 

·1 

1 

7 2 

1 4 4 

2 '7 ·o 

8 6 '2 - 5 5 2 

5 7 

I 

6 

1 

2 5 7 .6 * 

pp roved for Release by NSA on 12-16-2014 

ursuant to E.O. 13526
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7815** 

CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR
. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director VDOC; LINDA SHIELDS, F.S. Dir. VDOC; CARL MARROW, Reg. F.S. Dir. VDOC; JEFFREY DILLMAN, Warden Powhatan Corr. Ctr.; L. HUNT, Food Service Director, P.C.C. , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 00049

- H EH )

Submitted : April 2 8 , 2015 Decided: May 1, 2015

Before GREGORY , SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Clarence Roulhac, Jr ., Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee s . Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Clarence Roulhac, Jr., a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to s tate a claim. While Roulhac’s informal appellate brief raises myriad challenges to the conditions of his confinement, we conclude only his Eighth Amendment claims related to the quality of the food and water served at Powhatan Correctional Center (“PCC”) were fairly presented in the complaint and thus properly raised in the district court. See Cozzarelli v. Inspire Pharm., Inc. , 549 F.3d 618, 630

- 31 (4th Cir. 2008) (finding no abuse of discretion in “declining to grant a motion [to amend] that was never p roperly made”) ; see also In re Under Seal , 749 F.3d 276, 285

- 86 (4th Cir. 2014) (recognizing c ourt will not consider issues raised for first time on appeal absent exceptional circumstances) . Additionally, Roulhac has forfeited appellate review of his challenge to PCC’s water quality by failing to address this issue in his informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to issues raised in informal brief). As for the dism issal of Roulhac’s claim related to the quality of the food served at PCC, w e have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. W e affirm as to this issue for the reasons stated by the district court. Roulhac v. Clarke , No. 3:13

- cv - 00049

- HEH (E.D. V a. Nov. 26, 2014)
. Additionally,3 we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of Roulhac’s motions for appointment of counsel. See Miller v. Simmons , 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987) (standard of review); Whisenant v. Yuam , 739 F.2d 160, 163 (4t h Cir. 1984) (addressing circumstances requiring appointment of counsel in civil cases), abrogated on other grounds by Mallard v. U.S. Dist. C ourt , 490 U.S. 296 (1989). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument b ecause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1912

In re: FRANKLIN C. SMITH,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin C. Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Franklin C. Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking 

to compel the Social Security Administration (SSA) to reinstate 

disability benefits. However, Smith presents no evidence that 

he exhausted administrative procedures prior to filing this 

petition. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 328 (1976). 

Absent exhaustion of administrative procedures, courts maintain 

jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of mandamus only if the 

petitioner establishes that “the administrative process normally 

available is not accessible” because the agency fails or refuses 

to act. U.S. ex rel. Rahman v. Oncology Assocs., P.C., 198 F.3d 

502, 515 (4th Cir. 1999). Smith has not demonstrated that the 

SSA has refused to consider his case, and we therefore do not 

have jurisdiction to consider Smith’s petition. 

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny Smith’s motions to compel and dismiss his

mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED
-

( 

tM..a-,~~e__ - Scv~;"':_ ··-y 

\-~ '~g 

:s---v-- l 0 0 ~ 

r~ loo~ 

i;-+ I 010 

REF ID:A488534 

lA\pproved for Release by NSA on 11-06-2013 pursuant to E. 0. 1352§
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0139. YVONNE MURPHY-HICKMAN v. SHARON L. BRYANT et al.

After the trial court dismissed this civil action in January 2016, plaintiff Yvonne

Murphy-Hickman attempted to electronically file a notice of appeal, but encountered technical

difficulties. Consequently, in March 2016, Murphy-Hickman petitioned the trial court to file

her notice of appeal nunc pro tunc to January 27, 2016. The trial court construed MurphyHickman’s request as seeking an out-of-time appeal, which it denied in an order entered on

June 10, 2016.

On September 6, 2016, Murphy-Hickman petitioned the Supreme Court of Georgia for

relief from the trial court’s June 10 order. The Supreme Court construed Murphy-Hickman’s

petition as an application for discretionary appeal, which it then transferred to this Court. We

lack jurisdiction for two reasons.

First, out-of-time appeals are not available in civil cases. See Woodall v. Woodall, 248

Ga. 172 (281 SE2d 619) (1981); Register v. Elliott, 285 Ga. App. 741, 744 (647 SE2d 406)

(2007). Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying Murphy-Hickman’s request for an

out-of-time appeal is not subject to appellate review.

Second, even if Murphy-Hickman had a right to appellate review here, her application

is untimely. An application for discretionary review must be filed within 30 days of entry of

the order or judgment to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d). The requirements of OCGA § 5-6-

35 are jurisdictional, and this Court cannot accept an application for appeal not made in

compliance therewith. Boyle v. State, 190 Ga. App. 734 (380 SE2d 57) (1989). MurphyHickman’s application was untimely filed 88 days after entry of the order she seeks to appeal.

Accordingly, this application is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/21/2016

November 21, 2016
REF. ID: A6833. 

Jlr. w. E. Willl&tt, Jr. 

765 Jonathan ldvar4e Ooll•s• 

Yale Un1•erait1 

••• .Raven. Oormectiout 

Dear -· w111 ... tt1 

SPSIS-7 

April 211 194, 

Your letter of April 24, add.reeaed to ~. William 

F. Friedman. haa been received .at bis ottice. · Untortu.• 

na.tel,., •· Friedm&n will be awa1 trom hi• ottice tor 

••veral veeka. Hi• atteation ·v1ll be brought to JO\U' 

letter illmed.1atel1 upon hie return. 

81acerelJ foes, 

pproved for Releas~ by NSA on 04-02-2014 pursuant to E.O. 

13526 .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF INTERNATIONAL IMAGING, INC. FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
(B) FORM 10-KSB FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED MARCH 31, 1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                          12,790
<SECURITIES>                                    18,191
<RECEIVABLES>                                  563,224
<ALLOWANCES>                                    73,404
<INVENTORY>                                  1,608,226
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,148,230
<PP&E>                                       1,197,109
<DEPRECIATION>                                 651,335
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,705,328
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,085,480
<BONDS>                                      1,092,624
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,733,416
<OTHER-SE>                                     521,544
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,705,328
<SALES>                                      3,557,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,557,627
<CGS>                                        2,684,356
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,684,356
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,537,979
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              90,141
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (746,289)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (746,289)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (746,289)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1

                                  UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

                          Subsidiaries of Uniroyal Technology Corporation

         The following table sets forth,  with respect to each subsidiary of the
Company,  the state of  organization  and the  percentage  of voting  securities
currently owned by the Company:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                    Percentage of Voting Securities Directly or
Subsidiary Name                         State of Organization             Indirectly Owned by the Company
---------------                         ---------------------             -------------------------------
<S>                                            <C>                                      <C>

Uniroyal HPP Holdings, Inc.                    Delaware                                 100%
High Performance Plastics, Inc.                Delaware                                 (a)
Uniroyal Engineered Products, Inc.             Delaware                                 100%
Uniroyal Optoelectronics, Inc.                 Delaware                                 100%
Uniroyal Optoelectronics, LLC                  Delaware                                 (b)
UnitechNJ, Inc.                                Delaware                                 100%
Uniroyal Liability Management                  Delaware                                 69%
Company, Inc.
BayPlas2, Inc.                                 Delaware                                 (c)


(a)      A wholly-owned subsidiary of Uniroyal HPP Holdings, Inc.

(b) A joint venture with Emcore  Corporation  whereby Uniroyal  Optoelectronics,
Inc. is a 51% owner.

(c) A wholly-owned subsidiary of Uniroyal Liability Management Company, Inc.
</TABLE>