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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 98 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 98

 Designating each of April 15, 2009, and April 15, 2010, as ``National 
                            TEA Party Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 2, 2009

 Mr. Vitter submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating each of April 15, 2009, and April 15, 2010, as ``National 
                            TEA Party Day''.

Whereas the taxpayers of the United States understand that the so-called 
        ``stimulus bill'', the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
        (Public Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115), included a laundry list of spending 
        projects;
Whereas the taxpayers of the United States understand that the bailouts of Wall 
        Street by the United States Government have been ineffective and a waste 
        of taxpayer funding;
Whereas the taxpayers of the United States agree that the United States 
        Government should stop wasteful spending, reduce the tax burden on 
        families and businesses, and focus on policies that will lead to job 
        creation and economic growth; and
Whereas taxpayers in the United States are expressing their opposition to high 
        taxes and skyrocketing spending by the United States Government by 
        organizing ``Taxed Enough Already'' parties, also known as ``TEA'' 
        parties: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate designates each of April 15, 2009, and 
April 15, 2010, as ``National TEA Party Day''.
                                 <all>
```
|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                          
|View History:                                                           
|                                                                        
|Delaware Natural Gas Industrial Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        
|                                                                        
|Delaware Natural Gas Industrial Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 4.40   | 4.13   | 4.07  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 5.03   | 6.85   | 6.16   | 6.37   | 7.72   | 10.86  | 11.94  | 8.93   | 12.54  | 13.99 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 10.18  | 11.69  | 11.61  | 11.24  | 10.95  | 10.11  | 9.02   | 9.91   | 10.07  | 9.67  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 10.78  | 11.59  | 12.05  | 13.69  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
JEROME BLACKSHEAR

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4392

______ _______________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

. Andrew J. Decker, III , Judge

.

Jerome Blackshear, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURI AM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 13, 2019

No. 04-19-00013-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.W.L., G.L.L, L.R. III., AND A.R., CHILDREN,

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15759A

Honorable Cathy Morris, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On January 7, 2019, appellant filed a notice of appeal appealing the trial court’s order 

terminating parental rights signed on March 1, 2017. Appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b) (providing that the notice of appeal in an accelerated appeal is due 

within twenty days of the signing of the judgment), 28.4(a) (providing that appeals in 

parental termination cases are accelerated). Absent a timely notice of appeal, this court lacks 

jurisdiction over the appeal. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (holding 

that once extension period has passed, a party can no longer invoke an appellate court’s 

jurisdiction).

In addition, the March 1, 2017 order appellant seeks to appeal was the subject of an 

appeal in this court assigned cause number 04-17-00144-CV. On August 30, 2017, this court 

issued a memorandum opinion affirming the trial court’s March 1, 2017 order terminating 

appellant’s rights to his minor children. See In re L.R., III, No. 04-17-00144-CV, 2017 WL 

3722029, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.). The mandate 

issued on January 18, 2018. Our plenary power over this appeal has expired, and we no longer 

have jurisdiction to consider appellant’s complaints in relation to the March 1, 2017 order. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 19.1, 19.3. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within 20 days from 

the date this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All other 

appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of February, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        49897
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                       3901
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           10434
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         52216
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  116448
<COMMON>                                          7357
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                           38
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              29282
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   36677
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             39740
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                2200
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                     1315
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   36516
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   116448
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        27707
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             (194)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       26912
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       26718
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            989
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 140
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                    1129
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1736
<NET-INCOME>                                     (607)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    (607)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           809
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                         1560
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                           (182)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.38)
        







</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-1713

JULIO R. WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HAMPTON ROADS SHIPPING ASSOCIATION; ILA LOCAL

1248; ILA LOCAL 970; ILA SENIORITY BOARD;

MANAGEMENT/ILA SENIORITY COMMITTEE; HAMPTON

ROADS SHIPPING ASSOCIATION/ILA CONTRACT BOARD;

HAMPTON ROADS DISTRICT COUNCIL LOCAL INDUSTRY

GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE,

Defendants - Appellees,

LEE BOOTHBY,

Movant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CA-01-880-2)

Submitted: January 27, 2003 Decided: March 12, 2003

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Thomas R. Knoll, Sr., Staunton, Virginia; Lee Boothby, Washington,

D.C., for Appellant. Dean T. Buckius, Christopher Ambrosio,

VANDEVENTER BLACK, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia; Deborah C. Waters,

RUTTER, WALSH, MILLS, & RUTTER, L.L.P., Norfolk, Virginia; Charles

S. Montagna, MONTAGNA, BREIT, KLEIN, CAMDEN, L.L.P., Norfolk,

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Julio Washington appeals the district court’s judgment

granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing his

employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Washington v. Hampton Roads,

CA-01-880-2 (E.D. Va. May 31, 2002). Having granted the motion to

submit the case on briefs, we dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
No. 12-247.

#### Vargas *v.*Hedgpeth, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EX:15

                                                                   July 31, 2000


                           Accountants' Acknowledgment


         We acknowledge the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-08833, No. 33-78340 and No. 333-41379) of
OptimumCare Corporation of our report dated July 31, 2000 with respect to the
condensed consolidated financial statements of OptimumCare Corporation which
appears on page 3 of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2000.





                                      /s/ Lesley, Thomas, Schwarz & Postma, Inc.
                                          A Professional Accountancy Corporation
                                          Newport Beach, California
#### State v. McCammon

105,765

05/20/13

Denied. ...

Unpublished
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A1541. RICHARD E. DUNN et al v. METRO GREEN FRANKLIN, LLC.

The Appellant in the above-styled case has filed a motion entitled Appellant’s

Motion ToWithdraw Appeal. Upon consideration and review, pursuant toCourtRule

41(g)(1), said motion is hereby GRANTED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

July 08, 2022

07/08/2022
# C_2019425EN.01000101.xml

| 18.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 425/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 425/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9399 — Remondis/ALFA Rohstoffhandel München/Geiger Beteiligung/Durmin Beteiligung/Garching Hochbrück)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 425/01)

On 6 December 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in German language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9399. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9399. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2015-3659 ☐ These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-SW-050-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: ☒ FRAN ☐ SNPRM

☒ No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? 

If yes, list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the 

previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point 

for guidance. Latest Revision.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: Choose one.

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? Yes/No

If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert justification We disagree with

Insert text because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If NO, we don’t agree because Insert our rationale

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: Choose one.

If other, explain: Click here to enter text.

Commenter(s): Click here to enter text.

What change to the AD action is requested? Click here to enter text.

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Click here to enter text.

Do we agree? Yes/No 
Page 2 of 3

If YES, we agree because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with Insert text because Insert justification We disagree with 

Insert text because Insert justification Make the following changes to the AD: List any 

changes to the AD

If NO, we don’t agree because Insert our rationale

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
No. 12-261.

#### Fharmacy Records, aka Fharmacy Records Production Co. et al. *v.*Nassar et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
##### 



Exhibits


Exhibit 99.5

In connection with the Amendment No. 2
to the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Royal Dutch Petroleum
Company (N.V. Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij),
a corporation organised under the laws of the Netherlands (the
Company) for the period ending December 31,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned
officers of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to such officers
knowledge, that:



|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1.) | the Report fully complies, in all material
    respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
    of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                            
|   
|2.) | the information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
    presented in the Report.

The foregoing certification is provided solely
for purposes of complying with the provisions of
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not
intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.

/s/ Jeroen van der Veer

---------------------------------------------------------------


Jeroen van der Veer


President and Managing Director


/s/ Peter Voser

---------------------------------------------------------------


Peter Voser


Chief Financial Officer


March 3, 2005



Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies E
13


20-F/A (Amendment No. 2) 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 650 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 650

    Designating the week of October 24 through October 30, 2010, as 
         ``National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 27, 2010

  Mr. Reed (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. 
    Menendez, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Johanns) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Designating the week of October 24 through October 30, 2010, as 
         ``National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week''.

Whereas lead poisoning is one of the leading environmental health hazards facing 
        children in the United States;
Whereas approximately 200,000 children in the United States under the age of 6 
        have harmful levels of lead in their blood;
Whereas lead poisoning may cause serious, long-term harm to children, including 
        reduced intelligence and attention span, behavioral problems, learning 
        disabilities, and impaired growth;
Whereas children from low-income families are significantly more likely to be 
        poisoned by lead than are children from high-income families;
Whereas children may be poisoned by lead in water, soil, housing, or consumable 
        products;
Whereas children most often are poisoned in their homes through exposure to lead 
        particles when lead-based paint deteriorates or is disturbed during home 
        renovation and repainting; and
Whereas lead poisoning crosses all barriers of race, income, and geography: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates the week of October 24 through October 30, 
        2010, as ``National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week''; 
        and
            (2) calls upon the people of the United States to observe 
        National Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week with 
        appropriate programs and activities.
                                 <all>
```
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





In connection with the Annual Report of Bridgetech Holdings International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Scott Landow, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, That to the best of my knowledge:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By /s/ Scott Landow


Scott Landow


Chief Executive Officer, President


April 15, 2011
#### Unified Government of WYCO/KCK v. Nails

112,620

03/31/2016

Denied.

Unpublished