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

<ARTICLE>           5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,152,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,150,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (806,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  9,016,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         363,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (317,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,317,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                     21,533,000
<COMMON>                                       332,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (24,844,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,317,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               838,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,210,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,512,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,895,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,895,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.07)
<FN>
<F1> CURRENT ASSETS AND CURRENT LIABILITIES VALUES ARE
ZERO BECAUSE OF AN UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8761 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8761

   To reduce premiums under the National Flood Insurance Program for 
              certain properties, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 17, 2020

Mr. Gianforte introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To reduce premiums under the National Flood Insurance Program for 
              certain properties, 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 ``Flood Protection Modernization 
Fairness Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. FLOOD INSURANCE PREMIUM RATES FOR AREAS WITH SMALL FLOOD 
              CONTROL PROJECTS.

    Notwithstanding section 1308(e) of the National Flood Insurance Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4015(e)) or any other provision of law, during the 
10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, in 
the case of any property located in an area for which protection is to 
be provided by a project with respect to which a non-Federal interest 
has requested assistance pursuant to section 205 of the Flood Control 
Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 701s) but which has not been completed, the 
premium rate for flood insurance coverage made available under the 
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) shall be 
the preferred risk premium rate for such property.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 3, 2020

No. 04-18-00498-CV

MWM HELOTES RANCH, LTD. and Myfe Moore,

Appellants

v.

John H. WHITE Jr., Individually; John H. White III, Individually; John H. White Jr., John H. 

White III, and Molly C. White, in their capacities as Co-Trustees of the 1983 John H. White

Long-Term Trust F/B/O John H. White Jr., and of the 1976B Partnership Trust; TCW Helotes 

Ranch Ltd; and Tuleta White,

Appellees

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CI11563

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On August 20, 2020, appellees filed a motion to amend the judgment to render judgment 

against the surety in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.5. The motion recites that appellants 

oppose the requested relief. Because we affirmed the trial court’s judgment, the rendition of 

judgment against the surety on the appellants’ supersedeas bond is a mandatory, ministerial duty

that may be performed at any time, even after our plenary power has expired. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 43.5, 19.3; see also Whitmire v. Greenridge Place Apartments, 333 S.W.3d 255, 260-61 (Tex. 

App.– Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. dism’d) (noting that rendering judgement against the 

sureties is a ministerial act involving no judicial discretion and thus the court of appeals may 

amend its judgment after its plenary power expires to operate against the sureties on the 

supersedeas bond). Accordingly, the appellees’ motion is GRANTED. An amended judgment 

holding the surety on appellants’ Supersedeas Bond No. 3462398 liable for the performance of 

the judgment and for any costs taxed against appellants to the extent of the bond amount will be 

issued shortly, after which the mandate will be issued.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of September, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
# C_2022326EN.01001101.xml

| 29.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 14 June 2022 — Tüke Busz Közösségi Közlekedési Zrt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-391/22)

(2022/C 326/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Tüke Busz Közösségi Közlekedési Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Are the decision adopted in this case by the Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal (National Tax and Customs Authority) and the practice followed by that authority, whereby ‘regular passenger transport does not include the mileage necessary for the maintenance of regular passenger transport vehicles or for refuelling’, compatible with the provisions of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity? (1)

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.

---
# C_2022011EN.01003501.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/35

---

Action brought on 10 November 2021 — G.J. Riedel v EUIPO — Brew Dog (Punk)

(Case T-720/21)

(2022/C 11/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: G.J. Riedel GmbH (Kufstein, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brew Dog plc (Ellon, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Punk — International registration designating the European Union No 1 365 577

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2021 in Case R 291/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
#### James FULTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee

No. 17-50403

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 13, 2018

James Fulton, Jr., Pro Se

Edward Larry Marshall, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee

Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James Fulton, Jr., Texas prisoner # 1770265, has filed a notice of appeal that *449is untimely with respect to the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his conviction for murder. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). It also is untimely with respect to the denial of his motion seeking to reopen the time for appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (c)(1). Alternatively, his request to the district court to reopen the time for appeal was untimely, so his appeal of that denial is without merit. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. *See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago,*— U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 13, 16-17, 199 L.Ed.2d 249 (2017); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a), (c). The motions for a certificate of appeal-ability and leave to proceed in forma pau-peris are DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *449published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir, R. 47.5.4.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8715 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary 

of Education to make public a plan for the continuation of education 

during a public health emergency. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2020 

Mr. PAYNE (for himself, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. MFUME, Mr. HASTINGS, and 

Mr. CARSON of Indiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

and the Secretary of Education to make public a plan 

for the continuation of education during a public health 

emergency. 

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 ‘‘Pandemic Planning 

5 and Response For Schools Act of 2020’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8715 IH

1 SEC. 2. PLAN FOR CONTINUATION OF EDUCATION DURING 

2 PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY. 

3 Not later than 30 days after the date on which the 

4 Secretary of Health and Human Services determines, pur5 suant to section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 

6 U.S.C. 247d), that a public health emergency exists, such 

7 Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Edu8 cation, shall provide to the Congress, the States, and the 

9 public a clear and concise plan containing guidance on— 

10 (1) best practices for keeping students and fac11 ulty safe during the public health emergency; 

12 (2) best practices for keeping schools func13 tioning to the maximum extent possible, consistent 

14 with public health requirements and recommenda15 tions; and 

16 (3) establishing priorities for cohorts of stu17 dents who, consistent with public health require18 ments and recommendations, should receive— 

19 (A) an education program based entirely 

20 on online delivery of instruction; 

21 (B) an education program which occurs 

22 under direct instructor supervision at a school 

23 or other location away from home; and 

24 (C) a hybrid or blended learning program, 

25 which occurs under direct instructor supervision 

26 at a school or other location away from home 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8715 IH

1 and, at least in part, through online delivery of 

2 instruction. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2022011EN.01002902.xml

| 10.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/29

---

Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Haidukevich v Council

(Case T-580/21)

(2022/C 11/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aleh Haidukevich (Semkino, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.

---

(1)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.

(2)  OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.

---
/**
* DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE.
* See the following change record for more information,
* https://www.drupal.org/node/2815083
* @preserve
**/
(function ($, once) {
  var deprecatedMessageSuffix = "is deprecated in Drupal 9.3.0 and will be removed in Drupal 10.0.0. Use the core/once library instead. See https://www.drupal.org/node/3158256";
  var originalJQOnce = $.fn.once;
  var originalJQRemoveOnce = $.fn.removeOnce;
  $.fn.once = function jQueryOnce(id) {
    Drupal.deprecationError({
      message: "jQuery.once() ".concat(deprecatedMessageSuffix)
    });
    return originalJQOnce.apply(this, [id]);
  };
  $.fn.removeOnce = function jQueryRemoveOnce(id) {
    Drupal.deprecationError({
      message: "jQuery.removeOnce() ".concat(deprecatedMessageSuffix)
    });
    return originalJQRemoveOnce.apply(this, [id]);
  };
  var drupalOnce = once;
  function augmentedOnce(id, selector, context) {
    originalJQOnce.apply($(selector, context), [id]);
    return drupalOnce(id, selector, context);
  }
  function remove(id, selector, context) {
    originalJQRemoveOnce.apply($(selector, context), [id]);
    return drupalOnce.remove(id, selector, context);
  }
  window.once = Object.assign(augmentedOnce, drupalOnce, {
    remove: remove
  });
})(jQuery, once);
# FILED
April 23, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON APRIL 1998 SESSION
JOHN DERRICK COLEMAN, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9707-CR-00291 ) vs. ) GIBSON COUNTY ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) No. 2795 ) Respondent. )

O R D E R
This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s petition for post-convic

tion relief. The petitioner or iginally filed his

petition in September 1994. The trial court dismis sed the petition without a hearing and without appoi nting counsel. On appeal, concluding that the trial court should have appointe d counsel, allowed counsel to file an amended petition, and, if necessary, afford the petitioner a hearing on his petition, this Court reversed and remanded the order of the trial court. Coleman v. State , No. 02C01-9505-CC-00122 ( Tenn. Crim. App., Apr. 17, 1996).On remand, after appointing counsel and hearing the m erits of the petition, the trial court again dismissed the petiti on. The petitioner, by and thr ough counsel, filed a notice of appeal to this Court.

The petitioner alleges that trial counsel was i neffective and that the postconviction court’s ac

tions and statements prejudiced the petitioner’s case. The petitioner, however, has failed to include the transcript of the post-con viction hearing in the record on appeal. T.R.A.P. 2 4(b). In such a case, the petitioner has waived the affected issues and this Court, the refore, is precluded from conducti ng an appropriate review on appeal. See State v. Ballard , 855 S.W .2d 557 (T enn. 199 3). Accord ingly, “[i]n the absence of an adequate r ecord on appeal, this court mus t presume that the trial court’s rulings were supported by sufficient evidence.” State v. Oody , 823 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991).2 For this reason, we ar

e unable to find any error i n the proceedings below

. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Since the record reflects that the petitioner i s indigent, costs of this proceeding shall be asses sed to the state.
Enter, this the ___ day of Apri l, 1998.

__________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

__________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E

__________________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8536 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8536

   To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to delay the reporting of 
  medical debt by consumer reporting agencies, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 6, 2020

Mr. Gallagher introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to delay the reporting of 
  medical debt by consumer reporting agencies, 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 ``Fair Medical Debt Reporting Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORTING OF MEDICAL DEBT TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES.

    The Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.) is amended--
            (1) in section 603, by adding at the end the following:
    ``(bb) Medical Debt.--The term `medical debt' means a debt arising 
from the receipt of medical services, products, or devices.'';
            (2) in section 605(a), by adding at the end the following:
    ``(9) Any information relating to a medical debt if--
            ``(A) the debt has not been placed for collection, charged 
        to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action;
            ``(B) the date on which the debt was placed for collection, 
        charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action 
        antedates the report by less than one year; or
            ``(C) the debt was fully paid or settled before the end of 
        the one-year period beginning on the date described in 
        subparagraph (A).''; and
            (3) in section 623, by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Additional Notice Requirements for Medical Debt.--Before a 
person furnishes information relating to a medical debt of a consumer 
to a consumer reporting agency, such person shall--
            ``(1) notify the consumer that no consumer reporting agency 
        may make a consumer report containing any information relating 
        to a medical debt if--
                    ``(A) the debt has not been placed for collection, 
                charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar 
                action; or
                    ``(B) the date on which the debt was placed for 
                collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to 
                any similar action antedates the report by less than 
                one year; and
            ``(2) ensure that the consumer has been provided with a 
        detailed accounting of such medical debt.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          26,360                  46,387
<SECURITIES>                                   269,735                 325,304
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,284                  21,137
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,890<F1>              11,174<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               336,269                 404,002
<PP&E>                                         390,385                 390,385
<DEPRECIATION>                               (123,718)                (94,092)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,875,393               2,090,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,655                  17,935
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      (1,441,188)<F2>         (1,343,547)<F2>
<PREFERRED>                                    126,716<F3>             219,103<F3>
<COMMON>                                     3,164,210               3,164,210
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,875,393               2,090,701
<SALES>                                        172,286                 183,094
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               218,384                 276,481
<CGS>                                          123,670                 101,426
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  316,025                 232,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (97,641)                  44,068
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)                     .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)                     .01
<FN>
<F1> Prepaid Expense
<F2> Retained Earnings Deficit
<F3> Gain on Investment in Securities (unrealized)
</FN>



</TABLE>