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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q
FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUL-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                APR-1-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                    15,236
<RECEIVABLES>                                  200,448
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,459
<INVENTORY>                                    108,767
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               322,455
<PP&E>                                         201,816
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,145
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 687,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          269,506
<BONDS>                                        158,532
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                     180,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   687,451
<SALES>                                        642,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               642,375
<CGS>                                          477,898
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  477,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,840
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,421)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (21)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,635)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,635)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Anthony REED, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Brian WILLIAMS, Sr. and Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 15-17490

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 16, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed June 23, 2017

Amelia Bizzaro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, Las Vegas DC., Esquire, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant

Anthony Reed, Pro Se

Daniel M. Roche, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, AGNV—Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Respondents-Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER, FISHER,* and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony Reed appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 federal habeas petition. We affirm.

The state court’s determination that Reed’s counselors were not constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to juror *828misconduct did not “result[ ] in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as. determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). There is no evidence that juror number 244 engaged in misconduct. Thus, there were no legitimate grounds upon which Reed’s defense counselors could have objected. Thus, their decision not to object to did not fall “below an objective standard of reasonableness.” *Strickland v. Washington,*466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The remainder of Reed’s arguments are not properly before us, because Reed raised them for the first time on appeal. *See United States v. Carlson,*900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
H. R. 6843 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area to include 

Lafourche Parish, Louisiana. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ATCHAFALAYA NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA EXPANSION. 

Section 213 of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area Act 

(subtitle B of title II of Public Law 109–338) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘and Ascension Parish’’ 

and inserting ‘‘Ascension, and Lafourche Parish’’; and 

(2) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ‘‘14’’ and inserting ‘‘15’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
t)OT-OST-H^OM^03 

'M^AHr COUNTY 

COVIMlSSlONFi^S 

oisi'Ricr I 

ItRl^TT A. KASTEW 

iHS'iRicr .' 

.llRiSTY Mll.l.KK 

:MSTRi«:T 3 

February 22'"^, 2011 

Dennis J. DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Sep/ices Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

COUNTY MANAt.!: U 

j'JN :'AI!1, SAAKi 

Ifpinme: if. 7:0 r-y-l-OOOH 

^ - XJZZi 

Re: EAS Contract for Grant County, New Mexico 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

With respect to your request for input on the EAS contract concerning air service lo 

Silver City / Hurley / Deming, New Mexico (Grant County Airport), I would like to offer 

ihc following information. 

The Grant County Commission, acting as owners of the airport to be serviced by this 

contract, has reviewed the proposals for Essential Air Service to Albuquerque or Phoenix. 

Based upon the current users of Great Lakes Airlines, the County Commission would like 

lo keep the service to Albuquerque with Great Lakes Airlines. 

I appreciate your efforts in securing these services for the citizens of Grant County to 

keep us connected with Albuquerque, Please contact me if you require any additional 

information. 

Sincerely, 7 

Jon Paiil Saari 

Grant County Manager
#### Raymond Terrell STEWART, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23633.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 1966.

Lacy Mahon, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., for appellant.

William J. Hamilton, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before WISDOM, BELL and GOD-BOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of transporting a stolen automobile in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312. The judgment of conviction was entered on a jury verdict of guilty. The sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on the insufficiency of the evidence to prove the essential elements of the alleged crime.

The record discloses an abundance of evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the vehicle in question had been stolen; that appellant transported it in interstate commerce; and that he knew the vehicle had been stolen. This was a sufficient basis for denying the motion. See Orser v. United States, 5 Cir., 1966, 362 F.2d 580, on proof deriving from the unexplained possession of a recently stolen automobile.

Affirmed.
Regular Totals (Holders)

Airport = JFK

Season = S

Holder = 0001(Exclude)

Status Date = 01/01/2009 (Current & Future)

12/21/2010 07:56:05

Query Parameters:
12/21/2010 07:56:05

Carrier

Regular Totals (Holders)

Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded Excludes FAA Held

JFK Season = SUMMER

PF7 Status Date = 01/01/2009 (Current & Future)

JFK

AAL AMERICAN AIRLINES 189 

ABX ABX AIR 2 

ACA AIR CANADA 5 

COA CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 8 

DAL DELTA AIR LINES 396 

DHL DHL 4 

FDX FED EX 3 

JBU JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP. 366 

NWA NORTHWEST AIRLINES 12 

SCX SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES, INC. 4 

UAL UNITED AIRLINES 37 

UPS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 1 

USA US AIRWAYS 16 

VRD VIRGIN AMERICA 20 

Page 2
#### Dickinson v. The Heeb Brewing Co. The Same v. Glab Bros. The Same v. Schmidt Bros. & Co. Shear v. Kelson.

*Appeals from Dubuque District Court.*

*Appeal from Chickasaw District Court.*

1. Intoxicating Liquors: nuisance: constitutionality of statute: federal qubstion. An action to restrain a nuisance under the prohibitory liquor law is not removable to the federal courts on the ground that the enforcement of the law will deprive the defendant of property without due process of law; or of rights which were legal when acquired, without compensation; or that it will prevent the enjoyment of equal rights by citizens of the United States.

Wednesday, March 7.

The facts in the first case are substantially like those in the others, so far as we are required to consider them, and are as follows: The plaintiff avers that defendant has established a saloon in a building described for the keeping and selling of intoxicating liquors contrary to law, and is now engaged in such illegal business; that defendant owns the property described, and also certain beer-kegs, bottles and other property used in the saloon business. Plaintiff asks that the saloon be adjudged and decreed a nuisance; that the same be abated; that defendant be enjoined from maintaining said saloon, and from keeping and selling intoxicating liquors therein contrary to law; and that such other relief be granted as may be authorized. The defendant appeared, and filed its petition for the removal of the cause to the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of *706Iowa. The petition was granted, and from the order allowing the removal the plaintiff appeals.

*S. P. Adams*and *Jid*Lake, for appellant Dickinson.

*J. N.*Powers, for appellant S. R. Shear.

*Fouke*Lyon, for appellees.

Robinson, J.

As grounds for removal, the defendant alleges, in effect, that the laws of Iowa under which the action is brought are in derogation of the rights of defendant, as guaranteed by the constitution of the United States, and especially by the fourteenth amendment thereto, and the laws made in pursuance thereof; that, if enforced, they would deprive defendant of its property without due process of law; that they would deprive defendant of property and rights which were authorized and legal when acquired, without compensation; and that they would prevent the enjoyment of equal civil rights by citizens of the United States. It is sufficient for us to say that the supreme court of the United States, in the cases of *Mugler v. State of Kansas*and *State of Kansas v. Ziebold,*8 Sup. Ct. Rep., 273, decided the grounds upon which the petition for removal is based to be unsound. The several cases are therefore

Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q
FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                           11544
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   232185
<ALLOWANCES>                                      7836
<INVENTORY>                                     123381
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                365313
<PP&E>                                          187367
<DEPRECIATION>                                   42188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  789057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           277252
<BONDS>                                         199689
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           250
<OTHER-SE>                                      207680
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    789057
<SALES>                                         478506
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                478506
<CGS>                                           349635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   349635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               13176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   8477
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3814
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4422
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4422
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 0 9

- 2 0 1 6 8

E S O T E R I C K , I N C ; D E N N I S T H O M P S O N ; J U D I T H T H O M P S O N ,
P l a i n t i f f s
- A p p e l l a n t s
v

.
J P M O R G A N C H A S E B A N K N A T I O N A L A S S O C I A T I O N ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l e e

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o

. 4 : 0 7

- C V

- 2 8 2 4

B e f o r e J O N E S , C h i e f J u d g e , a n d J O L L Y a n d G A R Z A , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. P E R C U R I A M : *

T h e c o u r t h a s c a r e f

u l l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e b r i e f s a n d o r a l a r g u m e n t s o f t h e

p a r t i e s , a n d h a v e d o n e s o , f i n d s n o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r o f l a w o r f a c t a n d a f f i r m s o n
t h e b a s i s o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o p i n i o n

. A F F I R M E D

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Novembe r 11, 20 10
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion s hould not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-20168 Document: 00511291427 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/11/2010
#### Henrietta Weinberger, as Administratrix of the Estate of Albert Weinberger, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Cyril J. C. Quinn et al., as Executors of Earle Bailie, Deceased, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Argued January 6, 1943;

decided March *4,*1943.

*637
      *Harold L. Fierman, Milton Kunen*and *Theodore G. Weinberger*for appellant.

*Louis Connick*and *Benjamin C. Milner*for Cyril J. C. Quinn et al., as executors, et al., respondents.

*James L. Boone, Russell C. Gay*and *Ralph M. McDermid*for Electric Bond and Share Company, respondent.

*J. Adam Murphy*and *Adrian L. Foley*for United Gas Corporation, respondent.

*638Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ.
#### Severiano P. ORTIZ, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23500.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 10, 1966.

Andrew L. Jefferson, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Ernest Morgan, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.

Before WISDOM, BELL and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The District Court denied appellant’s motion to vacate and set aside his conviction and sentence. The sentence of ten years was entered on a plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with violating the narcotics laws. The plea was specifically to a count based on a violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4704(a) which does not carry its own sentence. However, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7237(a) does provide for the imposition of a prison sentence of not less than two or more than ten years for a first offense under § 4704(a). It follows that appellant was entitled to no relief under his motion. See Cordova v. United States, 5 Cir., 1964, 337 F.2d 614.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6964 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6964

 To establish limitations on advanced payments for bus rolling stock, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 11, 2024

 Mrs. Fischbach (for herself, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, and 
  Ms. Craig) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish limitations on advanced payments for bus rolling stock, 
                        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. LIMITATIONS ON ADVANCED PAYMENTS FOR BUS ROLLING STOCK.

    Section 5323 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(w) Limitations on Advanced Payments for Bus Rolling Stock.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
        chapter or part 200 of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations, or 
        any successor regulation, a recipient may use assistance made 
        available under this chapter to make an advance payment on a 
        bus rolling stock vehicle without the transit vehicle 
        manufacturer obtaining a performance bond or similar financial 
        arrangement.
            ``(2) Limitations.-- A recipient making an advance payment 
        under paragraph (1)--
                    ``(A) shall have--
                            ``(i) a signed purchase order and executed 
                        contract with a transit vehicle manufacturer 
                        that includes advance payment provisions;
                            ``(ii) preaward authority; and
                            ``(iii) met the requirements under 
                        subsection (m) and section 5318(e) of this 
                        title; and
                    ``(B) shall not provide an advanced payment that is 
                more than 20 percent of the total purchase order 
                value.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### USUIA, Plaintiff v. ENA, Defendant and TAUIMEA, Intervenor

No. 5-1911

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division [Land: “Tutu” or “Lealavia”, “Taulataga”, “Asoai”, or “Lealavia” and “Iumea” in Olosega, Manua]

June 5, 1911

[Names of Judges unknown]

*249DECISION

The complaint in this case was filed by the plaintiff, Usuia, asserting her title to four pieces of land in Olosega, Manua, viz., TUTU (also called Lealavia), TAULA-TAGA, ASOAI (also called Lealavia) and IUMEA. These pieces of land are now in possession of the defendant, Ena, and the family of Luelemana of which Ena is a member.

The testimony produced by plaintiff tended to show that many years ago one Mauga, ancestor of plaintiff obtained the land in recognition of his prowess and services as a fisherman, and that his title has descended to the present, plaintiff Usuia.

Defendant Ena on his part produced evidence of his possession, showing that he has a house on the property at present, built solely by defendant’s family.

It was admitted that the title to the four pieces of land is the same and therefore the true owner of one piece is the owner of the four pieces.

Defendant also denied any relationship with the plaintiff, Usuia, and the case, generally, presented a mass of irreconcilable testimony. The situation was further complicated by the intervention of Tauimea, who insisted upon entering the case and denying absolutely the rights of both plaintiff and defendant to the piece of land, called TUTU. The last witness (Tui), called on behalf of Tauimea denied Tauimea’s rights and claimed that he, the witness, owned the property and the Court was surprised to hear the Intervenor Tauimea disclaim his ownership and agree that the witness was the true owner. The Court dismissed the claim of Tauimea and upon the adjournment of Court proceeded with the consideration of the claims of the original plaintiff and defendant.

One of the few uncontested facts in the case is the possession of the land by defendant and his family for a long period of years. This Court is constrained to follow the *250rule requiring the plaintiff to present convincing, clear testimony of her ownership before it can undertake to disturb the possession of defendant.

The Court is of the opinion that plaintiff has failed to prove her case, and aside from this, the preponderance of evidence is with the defendant.

Let a decree therefore issue confirming the title of the land in the defendant Ena for the benefit of the Luelemana Family.

Costs are assessed at $20.00, Ten dollars to be paid by plaintiff Usuia, and Ten Dollars by the Intervenor Tauimea, as his costs for interfering with the trial of the case.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6989 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6989

  To amend an Act of Congress approved June 8, 1940, with respect to 
      emergency permits for rights-of-way, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2024

Mr. Good of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend an Act of Congress approved June 8, 1940, with respect to 
      emergency permits for rights-of-way, 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 ``Blue Ridge Fire Safety Act''.

SEC. 2. LICENSES OR PERMITS TO OWNERS OF ADJACENT LANDS.

    Section 2 of the Act of Congress approved June 8, 1940, entitled 
``To amend the Act of June 30, 1936 (49 Stat. 2041), providing for the 
administration and maintenance of the Blue Ridge Parkway, in the States 
of Virginia and North Carolina, by the Secretary of the Interior, and 
for other purposes.'' is amended--
            (1) by striking ``may issue'' and inserting the following:
            ``(1) may issue''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) shall issue at least 1 emergency permit for emergency 
        use.''.
                                 <all>
```