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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          18,384
<SECURITIES>                                     1,474
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                       108
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,714
<PP&E>                                          19,661
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,378
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,096
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,226
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,409
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,096
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,405
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,387
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (877)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,264
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    448
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,816
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .58
        

</TABLE>
U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

McCarthy Area Council 

P.O. Box MXY 31 

Glennallen. AK 99586 

To Whom It May Concern: 

October 29.2010 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Wasnlngton, DC 20590 

I.:Y 

U1 

<::> 

I would like to update you on the essential air service (EAS) situation at Gulkana, May 

Creek, and McCarthy, and give you an opportunity to offer any comments on the record 

before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. As you may know, Ellis Air Taxi, Inc. d/b/a Copper Valley Air 

Service (Ellis Air) is the current EAS provider at those communities, receiving a 

combined subsidy of $424.652, and their contract expires January 31, 2011. In 

anticipation of that, we issued Order 2010-9-27, September 27, 2010, soliciting proposals 

from carriers interested in providing subsidized EAS for a new, two-year period, 

beginning February 1,2011. In response to our request. only the incumbent. Ellis Air, 

submitted a proposal to maintain status-quo service at all three communities. 

In case you have not received a copy of the proposal from Ellis Air, it can be accessed at 

\vww.rcgulations.gov by entering the numbers OST-1995-492. I will briet1y summarize 

their proposal here. 

Ellis Air has proposed one service option at Gulkana using six-seat twin engine Piper PA31 aircraft operating two round trips each week year-round to Anchorage for an annual 

subsidy of $262,220. At May Creek and McCarthy, Ellis Air proposes to provide two 

nonstop or one-stop round trips per week to Gulkana using three-seat Cessna 185 aircraft 

during winter months and four-seat Cessna 206 aircraft during summer months for an 

annual subsidy of $176,692. 

The schedules that the carrier has proposed are illustrative only and they may make 

schedule changes to ret1ect changing conditions, e.g., to better meet shifting connecting 

bank times at the hub. However, the Department does expect a subsidized air carrier to 

maintain well-timed and well-spaced t1ights in order to ensure full compensation. 

We request that you review the proposals and submit any comments you may have as 

soon as possible, but no later than November 16. We will carefully consider your 

comments before we submit a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for a decision. 
- 2 -

Please send your comments via e-mail to EAS@dot.gov or by fax to 202-366-7638. If 

you have any questions, please feel free to contact Michael Martin of my staff at 

michael.f.martin@dot.gov or 202-366-6494 . 

Sincerely, 

cc: Rebecca J. Cronkhite 

Gulkana Village Council 

. JW~~ 

fV'- Dennis J. DeVany, Chief 

Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8578 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to close or realign the Marine Corps 

Recruit Depot located at Parris Island, South Carolina. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 9, 2020 

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. TIMMONS, Mr. 

DUNCAN, and Mr. RICE of South Carolina) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to close or realign 

the Marine Corps Recruit Depot located at Parris Island, 

South Carolina. 

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 ‘‘Parris Island Protec5 tion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The Marine Corps Recruit Depot located at 

9 Parris Island, South Carolina (in this section reVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:06 Oct 31, 2020 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H8578.IH H8578

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8578 IH

1 ferred to as ‘‘Parris Island’’), has served the United 

2 States as a home to the Marine Corps since 1891. 

3 (2) Parris Island was the first, and remains the 

4 only, facility to integrate women in boot camp train5 ing for the Marine Corps in the United States. 

6 (3) Female recruits have trained at Parris Is7 land since 1949. 

8 (4) The first integrated company of male and 

9 female recruits graduated from Parris Island in 

10 2019. 

11 (5) Parris Island has cultivated a legacy of ex12 cellence and faithful service to the United States. 

13 (6) Parris Island is and shall remain the phys14 ical home of the U.S. Marine Corps Eastern Re15 cruiting Region. 

16 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF CLOSING OR REALIGNMENT OF 

17 MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT LOCATED 

18 AT PARRIS ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA. 

19 No Federal funds may be used to close or realign Ma20 rine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina, 

21 or to conduct any planning or other activity related to 

22 such closure or realignment. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Mores Javier ROJAS-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71056

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 21, 2018

Peter D. De Bruyn, Attorney, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner

David H. Wetmore, Attorney, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Divi-, sion/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mores Javier Rojas-Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying a motion to continue and ordering removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the agency’s denial of a motion to continue, and review de novo constitutional claims. *Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey,*526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rojas-Cruz’s motion for a fourth continuance for failure to show good cause, where the IJ repeatedly warned him that no further continuances would be granted, and where he had over 21 months to complete his applications for relief but did not submit them by the deadline set by the IJ. *See*8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.29 (an IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for good cause shown”); 1003.31(c) (applications not filed by deadline set by IJ are deemed waived); *Ahmed v. Holder,*569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009).

The record does not support Rojas-Cruz’s contention that his waiver of his statutory right to counsel was not intelligent and voluntary. *See Tawadrus v. Ashcroft,*364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In order for a waiver [of the right to counsel] to be valid, an IJ must generally: (1) inquire specifically as to whether petitioner wishes to continue without a lawyer; and (2) receive a knowing and voluntary affirmative response.”(internal citations omitted)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Rojas-Cruz’s unexhausted contention regarding the rescheduling of his October 2013 hearing. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

*717PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Motion Granted; Order filed June 20, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 01143

- CR

____________ IKECHUKWU CHRIS OBUD ULU , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 23rd District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 65035



### ORDER
The State has filed a motion requesting we inspect the original of State’s Exhibit No. 2, a hammer

. Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(f) . The motion is GRANTED. Accordingly, t he clerk of the 23rd District Court is directed to deliver to the clerk of this court the original of State’s Exhibit No. 2, a hammer , on or before July 12 , 201 3

. The clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original exhibit; to deliver it to the justice s of this court for their

### inspection; and, upon completion of inspection, to return the original of State’s

Exhibit No. 2, a hammer , to the clerk of the 23rd District Court.

PER CURIAM
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 7, 2021

NO. 03

- 21

- 00115

- CR

Julian Ortega , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM T HE 331ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, TRIANA, A ND K ELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the tr i a l court. Having reviewed

the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal . Therefore, the Court

dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay

costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                 SUBSIDIARIES

Lyondell FSC, Inc.

Lyondell Mont Belvieu Corporation

Lyondell Petrochemical de Mexico, Inc.

Lyondell Refining Company

Lyondell Transportation Company
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         (5,942)
<SECURITIES>                                    68,625
<RECEIVABLES>                                   85,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,426
<PP&E>                                         246,878
<DEPRECIATION>                                 245,496
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,466,043
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,380,653
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         73
<COMMON>                                       214,526
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,848,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,466,043
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,064,451
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               324,046
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,660,976
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,660,976
<DISCONTINUED>                                (19,581)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,641,395
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-9957.

#### Amaker *v.*New York et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of the Cabinet Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31,
2004 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James M. Cassidy
                                 President and Director and
                                 Chief Executivie Officer,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and
                                 Principal Accounting Officer
Date:  November 12, 2004
No. 11-9965.

#### Turner *v.*Herrick et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2021382EN.01002901.xml

| 20.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/29

---

Action brought on 3 August 2021 — Calrose Rice v EUIPO — Ricegrowers (Sunwhite)

(Case T-459/21)

(2021/C 382/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Calrose Rice (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: H. Raychev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ricegrowers Ltd (Leeton, New South Wales, Australia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Sunwhite — Application for registration No 18 115 808

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2021 in Case R 2465/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and remit the European trade mark application No 18 115 808 SUNWHITE to the EUIPO in order to allow it to proceed to registration; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and remit the European trade mark application No 18 115 808 SUNWHITE to the EUIPO in order to allow it to proceed to registration;

| — | order the EUIPO and the intervener in the present proceedings to bear their own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as well as the costs of the appeal procedure before the Fourth Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the EUIPO and the intervener in the present proceedings to bear their own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings, as well as the costs of the appeal procedure before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board wrongly assumed that the applicant had admitted in its statement of grounds that the compared goods in Class 30 are identical; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board wrongly assumed that the applicant had admitted in its statement of grounds that the compared goods in Class 30 are identical;

| — | The Board erred in finding that the compared signs share all their elements; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board erred in finding that the compared signs share all their elements;

| — | The Board was wrong to limit, or focus exclusively, its conclusions regarding the comparison of the signs on the verbal components of the signs; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board was wrong to limit, or focus exclusively, its conclusions regarding the comparison of the signs on the verbal components of the signs;

| — | The Board failed to take sufficient account of the visual difference between the marks and made merely general conclusions in this regard without concrete reasoning. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board failed to take sufficient account of the visual difference between the marks and made merely general conclusions in this regard without concrete reasoning.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20- 0604 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. PRESTON CSOO ROSSBACH,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, Court Reporter Katie Oman is granted an extension of time to and including August 2 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 22 2021

03/22/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0604
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jorge Alejandro TORRES-LARRAGA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40723 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed February 22, 2018

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Scott Andrew Martin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, John Moreno Parras, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jorge Alejandro Torres-Larraga appeals his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams, that is approximately 7.28 kilograms, of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Torres-Larraga argues that the factual basis was insufficient to sup*334port his guilty plea conviction because the Government failed to meet its obligation to prove that he knew the type and quantity of drug involved in his offense.

As Torres-Larraga concedes, his argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Betancourt,*586 F.3d 303, 308-09 (5th Cir. 2009), which held that *Flores-Figueroa v. United States,*556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 173 L.Ed.2d 853 (2009), did not overturn *United States v. Gamez-Gonzalez,*319 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 2003), and that the Government is not required to prove knowledge of drug type and quantity as an element of a drug offense.

Accordingly, Torres-Larraga’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-521]


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

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE AND TIME: January 14, 1997; 9:00 a.m.

PLACE: Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20547.

CLOSED MEETING: The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
(BBG) will meet in closed session to address internal procedural, 
budgetary, and personnel issues, as well as sensitive foreign policy 
issues relating to potential options in the U.S. international 
broadcasting field. This meeting is closed because if open it likely 
would either disclose matters that would be properly classified to be 
kept secret in the interest of foreign policy under the appropriate 
executive order (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose information 
the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly 
frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 
552b.(c)(9)(B)). In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely 
to the internal personnel issues of the BBG or the International 
Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c) (2) and (6)).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Persons interested in obtaining 
more information should contact Brenda Thomas at (202) 401-3736.

    Dated: January 6, 1997.
David W. Burke,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 97-521 Filed 1-6-97; 1:40 pm]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
#### John Lee JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-10518 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 4, 2018

John Lee Johnson, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Lee Johnson, Texas prisoner # 659223, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application in which he maintained that he was denied previously earned time- credits and that the denial of those credits affected his right to be released to mandatory supervision. This court granted a COA on a single issue — whether the district court correctly dismissed with prejudice the application for failure to prosecute. *Johnson v. Davis,*No. 16-10518 (5th Cir. Apr. 26, 2017).

This court’s review is limited to issues for which a COA has been granted. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); *United States v. Kimler,*150 F.3d 429, 430 (5th Cir. 1998); *Lackey v. Johnson,*116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997). While pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, even pro se litigants must brief claims in order to preserve them. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a).

Johnson has failed to address the procedural issue of whether the district court properly dismissed his § 2254 application for failure to prosecute. He has instead briefed the merits of his claim that his due process rights were violated because he was denied good-time credits. Because Johnson has not addressed the only issue upon which a COA was granted, he has abandoned that issue on appeal. *See Yohey,*985 F.2d at 224-25.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# EAVS Section B_UOCAVA