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


<ARTICLE>                     5
                     
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                           22,852
<SECURITIES>                                     21,341
<RECEIVABLES>                                    40,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 88,037
<PP&E>                                           19,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                    9,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  700,035 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            52,766
<BONDS>                                          76,364
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0   
<COMMON>                                            454
<OTHER-SE>                                      233,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    700,035
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 63,529
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 49,687  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3,059   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10,783 
<INCOME-TAX>                                      4,745
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6,038
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0 
<NET-INCOME>                                      6,038
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .13
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1310 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1310

    To authorize additional district judgeships for the district of 
                   Colorado, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 2021

  Mr. Neguse introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize additional district judgeships for the district of 
                   Colorado, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Colorado Judgeship Act''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.

    (a) Additional District Judgeships.--The President shall appoint, 
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 3 additional district 
judges for the district of Colorado.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table in section 
133(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
relating to Colorado and inserting the following:

``Colorado.................................................        10''.
 

SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL PLACE FOR HOLDING COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF 
              COLORADO.

    Section 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
``Fort Collins,'' after ``Pueblo,''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**I, Jack H. Brown, certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 8, 2007/s/ Jack H. Brown
Siosaia Lasike FONUA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2696

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Mary ST. GERMAIN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4569

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 01, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The appellee's motion to dismiss is granted. This appeal is dismissed as from a nonappealable nonfinal order. See Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14, 20 (Fla. 1992) ; cf. Floridian Cmty. Bank, Inc. v. Bloom, 25 So. 3d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Anthony M. GRANT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1076

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

August 18, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for belated appeal of the denial of petitioner's postconviction motion after evidentiary hearing, order dated October 5, 2016, is granted in circuit court case number 96-11235. This order shall serve as a notice of appeal for purposes of calculating the time standards of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Within twenty days the trial court shall consider appellant's eligibility for appointment of appellate counsel, provided appellant files within ten days a motion in the circuit court requesting same accompanied by a financial affidavit, and shall enter an order thereupon, with a copy to appellant and a copy to this court. This ten-day time limit hall not limit the trial court's authority to provide counsel to appellant.

The circuit court clerk shall treat this order as a notice of appeal, promptly certify same and return it to this court as with any notice of appeal, and a new appellate case number will be assigned to this appeal and an acknowledgment letter will issue at that time.

VILLANTI, WALLACE, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
MASSBANK Corp.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
33-11949 and No. 33-82110) on Form S-8 of MASSBANK Corp. of our report dated
January 9, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of MASSBANK Corp.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 and the related consolidated
statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of
the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report is
incorporated by reference into the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K
of MASSBANK Corp.


                                                           /s/ KPMG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 26, 2001
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1363 

To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy 

Act of 1977 to provide for an additional goal of the Agriculture Advanced 

Research and Development Authority (AGARDA) to enhance the role 

of agriculture in innovative sustainability solutions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 25, 2021 

Mr. NEGUSE (for himself and Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 

and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 to provide for an additional goal of the Agriculture Advanced Research and 

Development Authority (AGARDA) to enhance the role 

of agriculture in innovative sustainability solutions. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Sustainable Agri5 culture Research Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1363 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL GOAL OF AGARDA TO ENHANCE ROLE 

2 OF AGRICULTURE IN INNOVATIVE SUSTAIN3 ABILITY SOLUTIONS. 

4 Section 1473H(b)(2) of the National Agricultural Re5 search, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 

6 U.S.C. 3319k(b)(2)) is amended— 

7 (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

8 the end; 

9 (2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as sub10 paragraph (E); and 

11 (3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the fol12 lowing: 

13 ‘‘(D) to enhance the role of agriculture in 

14 innovative voluntary resilience solutions in the 

15 United States through the development of agri16 cultural technologies that address— 

17 ‘‘(i) the impact of extreme weather on 

18 crop production; 

19 ‘‘(ii) the expansion of the potential for 

20 long-term carbon storage through agri21 culture; 

22 ‘‘(iii) increased economic and practical 

23 feasibility for renewable and sustainable 

24 energy on farms and in the agriculture in25 dustry; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1363 IH

1 ‘‘(iv) increased adoption of voluntary 

2 conservation practices that sequester car3 bon and build on-farm climate resilience; 

4 and’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD BARROW,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action 2:18-cv-674

Judge Algenon L. Marbley

Magistrate Judge Jolson

TOBY HOLTON, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. (Doc. 19). In brief, 

Plaintiff’s Motion asks the Court to compel Defendants to respond to his discovery requests. In 

response, Defendants represented that they have responded to Plaintiff’s requests and attached said 

responses. (Doc. 22, Ex. E). Defendants also demonstrated to the Court that their counsel has 

been in communication with Plaintiff throughout this litigation, explaining Defendants’ positions

regarding discovery. (See generally id., Exs. B, D, F). Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of 

the Motion to Compel, and the time for doing so has passed. Accordingly, the Motion is ripe for 

decision.

Upon review, the Court concludes that Defendants have satisfied their discovery 

obligations, and, consequently, the Motion is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: April 23, 2019 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case: 2:18-cv-00674-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 23 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 148
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JEFFREY BLEVINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF 2:18-CV-00364-EAS-KAJ

OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

Plaintiff/Petitioner

CAPITAL ALLIANCE GROUP

Case No.:

vs.

Defendant/Respondent

Division:

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION; CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Received by Ronald Schwalbe, on the 14th day of May, 2018 at 1:31 PM to be served upon CAPITAL ALLIANCE

GROUP at 1950 E 17TH ST 3RD FL, SANTA ANA, Orange County, CA 92705.

On the 15th day of May, 2018 at 1:43 PM, I, Ronald Schwalbe, SERVED CAPITAL ALLIANCE GROUP at 1950 E

17TH ST 3RD FL, SANTA ANA, Orange County, CA 92705 in the manner indicated below:

CORPORATE SERVICE, by personally delivering 1 copy(ies) of the above listed documents to the named Corporation,

by serving Jonathan Ruis, on behalf of said Corporation.

THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE COPY OF THIS PROCESS WAS LEFT IS AS FOLLOWS:

PERSON IN CHARGE, PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ACCEPT, who accepted service, with identity confirmed by

subject stating their name, an Hispanic male approx. 35-45 years of age, 5'10"-6'0" tall, weighing 160-180 lbs with

black hair. This individual verbally stated that he was authorized to except service of process On behalf of this

business.

Service Fee Total: $125.00

I, being first duly sworn, depose and state: That I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen, not a party

to nor interested in the above entitled action, and have the proper authority in the jurisdiction in which this service was

made. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing document and that the facts stated in it are true

and accurate.

______________

______________

______________

______________

NAME:

Notary Public: Subscribed and sworn before me on this ______ day of __________________ in the year of 20__

Personally known to me ______ or _______ identified by the following document:

4077

Ronald Schwalbe Server ID # Date

Number/Reference:

Type:

Notary Public for State of:

Commission Expiration:

Notary Public (Legal Signature)

REF: CAPITAL ALLIANCE GROUP Tracking #: 0024259724

Page 1 of 1

Case: 2:18-cv-00364-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/17/18 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 23
Michael COLLINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3394

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 31, 2018. Rehearing Denied March 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting ofGreenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart RRMeeting Documentation: IEAGHG 6thMonitoring NetworkMeeting May 6-8, 2010Date Staff ContactInformation (Name,email, phone #)Name ofOrganization(Attach list of allattendees namesand emails ifpossible)Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability,reporting requirements, etc.)WrittenCommentsProvided?Did theyalso submitto Docket?Date sent toEPA- CCD5/6 – 5/8Barbora MasterMaster.barbora@epa.gov202-343-9899See attachedattendee listEPA gave a presentation to the workshop attendeesabout the proposed rule. Presentation slides attached.N/AN/A
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2008-1255, -1256 

DIGITAL IMPACT, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BIGFOOT INTERACTIVE, INC., 

Defendant-Cross Appellant. 

Thomas E. Moore, III, The Moore Law Group, of Palo Alto, California, argued for 

plaintiff-appellant. 

Arthur M. Dresner, Duane Morris LLP, of New York, New York, argued for 

defendant-cross appellant. With him on the brief were Robert L. Byer, and Matthew C. 

Mousley, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Northern District of California 

Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2008-1255, -1256 

DIGITAL IMPACT, INC., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BIGFOOT INTERACTIVE, INC., 

 Defendant-Cross Appellant. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

in CASE NO(S). 05-CV-0636 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (LOURIE, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges). 

 AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

DATED March 10, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly, Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 30, 2008
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
  /s/ Jack H. Brown
 /s/ Phillip J. Smith
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF GRANT THORNTON LLP,**

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our reports dated June 13, 2005, accompanying the financial statements and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report ofCalifornia Micro Devices Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of California Micro Devices Corporation on Forms S-8 (File No.333-120313 effective November 4, 2004, File No. 333-108443 effective August 8, 2003, File No. 333-102199, effective December 24, 2002, File No. 333-88250, effective August 7, 2001, File No. 333-69268, effective August 7, 2001, File No. 333-43138,effective August 1, 2000, File No. 333-90919, effective November 12, 1999, File No. 333-61833, effective August 7, 1998, File No. 333-44959, effective January 27, 1998, File No. 333-10257, effective August 15, 1996, File No. 033-61907, effectiveAugust 17, 1995, File No. 033-84758, effective October 6, 1994, File No. 033-39000, effective February 20, 1991, File No. 033-39079, effective February 20, 1991, and File No. 033-22836, effective June 29, 1998, and Forms S-3 (File No. 333-113695,effective March 17, 2004, File No. 333-108417, effective August 29, 2003, File No. 333-102198, effective December 24, 2002, File No. 333-376206, effective January 2, 2002, File No. 333-44986, effective August 31, 2000, File No. 333-91073, effectiveNovember 11, 1999, and File No. 033-76986, effective March 28, 1994). 

 

SanJose, California 

June 13, 2005
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 1993-CR-0762-W2, filed in the 144th Judicial District Court,

Bexar County, Texas. 

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00746-CR

IN RE Eduardo H. WILLIAMS, Jr.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 22, 2008 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On October 6, 2008, relator filed a Motion for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus; therefore, we DENY the motion for

leave to file as moot. Also on October 6, 2008, relator filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, asking

this court to order the trial court to rule on his motion for appointment of counsel, which he seeks

for the purpose of requesting and obtaining access to “records and public information.” Relator

contends he filed his motion on July 9, 2008. Relator has not provided this court with a copy of his

motion or any other evidence of the number of other cases, motions, or issues pending on the trial

court’s docket; the number of cases, motions, or issues that have been pending on its docket longer
04-08-00746-CR

-2-

than relator’s motion; the number of cases, motions, or issues pending on its docket that lawfully

may be entitled to preferential settings; or the trial court’s schedule. Without such evidence, we can

not assess whether the trial court has acted unreasonably in failing to address the motion within the

slightly more than three months it has been pending. A trial court has great discretion over its

docket, and, while it cannot opt to forever avoid hearing a motion, no litigant is entitled to a hearing

at whatever time he may choose. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001,

orig. proceeding); see also Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (party seeking

mandamus relief has burden of providing court with a sufficient record to establish his right to

relief). 

Because relator has not met his burden of providing a record establishing that a properly filed

motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable time, he has not provided this court with grounds

to usurp the trial court’s inherent authority to control its own docket. Therefore, this court has

determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought, and the petition is DENIED. TEX.R. APP.

P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2172

DIANE VON FURSTENBERG STUDIO,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CATHERINE SNYDER, d/b/a Cathy 3254, d/b/a

katrina3254@vendio.com, d/b/a katrina3254@mailstep.com, d/b/a

Fairfax Trading Company,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

JOHN DOES, 1-15; XYZ CORPORATIONS, 1-15,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-01356-JCC)

Submitted: September 3, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Catherine Snyder, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin B. Bedell, Janet Shih

Hajek, GREENBERG & TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*We note that the district court erred in holding that the

Plaintiff’s registration provided Snyder with constructive notice

for the purposes of the damages award. This error was harmless,

however, because Plaintiff was entitled to elect statutory damages

even if Snyder had no actual notice of the registration of

Plaintiff’s mark. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1116(d)(1)(B)(I), 1117(c)

(2000).

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Catherine Snyder appeals the district court’s order

entering judgment against her on Plaintiff’s trademark infringement

claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (2000), trademark dilution claim under

15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(c) (West 1998 & Supp. 2008), and under Virginia

common law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. See

Diane Von Furstenberg Studio v. Snyder, No. 1:06-cv-01356-JCC (E.D.

Va. filed Oct. 23, 2007; entered Oct. 24, 2007).* 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