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>                                              46
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       53
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4
<INVENTORY>                                        129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   244
<PP&E>                                             318
<DEPRECIATION>                                     132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              162
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                       (267)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       968
<SALES>                                            943
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                              445
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    136
<INCOME-TAX>                                        53
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        83
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Schaffer v Jaskowiak

4th Dept: 140 AD3d 1748

denied
2015-1756.

#### McGowan v. Medpace, Inc.

Hamilton App. Nos. C-140634 and C-140652, 2015-Ohio-3743. Reported at 150 Ohio St.3d 296, 2017-Ohio-1340, 81 N.E.3d 435. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Cannon, J., dissents and would grant the motion in part and would reconsider the decision to dismiss the cause as having been improvidently accepted.

Brunner, J., dissents.

Timothy P. Cannon, J., of the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, sitting for Fischer, J.

Jennifer L. Brunner, J., of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, sitting for DeWine, J.
**EXHIBIT 32.B****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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe period ending June 30, 2006, of ANR PipelineCompany (the “Company”) as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, John R. Sult, Senior VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Controller, certify(i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ John R. Sult       John R. Sult *Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer* *and Controller* *(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)*   August 7, 2006     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to ANR Pipeline Company andwill be retained by ANR Pipeline Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
STATE OF WASHINGTON 

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 

PO Box 47600 • Olympia, WA 98504-7600 • 360-407-6000 

711 for Washington Relay Service • Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 

July 10, 2015 

Mr. Dennis M. McLenan, Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue 

Seattle, WA 98101 

RE: SIP Revision- Updates to Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency Solid Fuel Burning 

Device Standards Rule (Regulation 1 - Article VIII) 

Dear Mr. McLerran: 

On February 25,2015, Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA) asked Department of 

Ecology (Ecology) to adopt SRCAA's revised Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards Rule 

(Regulation 1 -Article VIII) into Washington's State Implementation Plan (SIP), and to submit it 

to United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. SRCAA amended rules 

for the use of solid fuel buming devices, including wood stoves, in the Spokane area in 2014. 

Before adopting the amendments, SRCAA provided notice to the public, accepted public 

comments, and held a public hearing. 

Ecology determined that the revised rule aligns with state law and federal requirements, and 

agreed to initiate the public process on the SIP revision. Ecology provided public notice, 

accepted comments from March 2, 2015, tln·ough April 10, 2015, and held two public hearings in 

Spokane on April2, 2015. Ecology met all state and federal procedural requirements. 

Ecology received 48 comments on this action, both oral and written. Ecology considered all of 

the comments received and developed a response to comments. After careful consideration of 

the comments, Ecology decided to adopt the SIP revision effective July 8, 2015. As the 

Governor's designee for Washington's SIP, I am submitting this revision to EPA and requesting 

approval in the SIP. 
Mr. Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator 

July 10,2015 

Page2 

The SIP submittal package is submitted electronically through EPA's e-SIP Submission System 

at https://cdx.epa.gov/. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Joanna 

Ekrem at Joanna.ekrem@ecy.wa.gov or (360) 407-6826. 

Sincerely, 

Maia D. Bellon 

Director 

cc: JeffHunt,EPARegion 10 

Stu Clark, Program Manager, Air Quality Program 

Records file
No. 09-1132.

#### Joel Escobar Ochoa, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 828, 131 S. Ct. 70,

178 L. Ed. 2d 23,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6390.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 340 Fed. Appx. 420.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Adam Worth, Appellant.

[60 NYS3d 806]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa Jackson, J.), rendered on or about February 10, 2015, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the *433sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick, Kern and Singh, JJ.
#### Wells v. Fletcher

OP 17-0224

05/09/17

Denied

Original Proceeding Habeas Corpus
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT-23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 registration numbers 333-94345, 333-41477 and 333-57879) pertaining to
the Amended and Restated 1992 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1996 Employee Stock
Purchase Plan, and the 1996 Directors Stock Option Plan, respectively, of EPIX
Medical, Inc. of our report dated February 5, 2000, with respect to the
financial statements of EPIX Medical, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 14, 2000
Decided February 9, 2017

#### Ayesha FF., Matter of, v Evelyn EE.

3d Dept: 143 AD3d 1120 (Proceeding No. 4)

denied*
Calendar No. 634

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2213

[Report No. 103–380]

A BILL

To make applicable the provisions of the Act comUtah Project, Utah, and for other purposes. monly known as the ‘‘Warren Act’’ to the Central

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Reported with an amendment
II

Calendar No. 634

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2213

[Report No. 103–380]

To make applicable the provisions of the Act commonly known as the ‘‘Warren

Act’’ to the Central Utah Project, Utah, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 20 (legislative day, JUNE 7), 1994

Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. HATCH) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

SEPTEMBER 26 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Reported by Mr. JOHNSTON, with an amendment

[Insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To make applicable the provisions of the Act commonly

known as the ‘‘Warren Act’’ to the Central Utah Project,

Utah, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF THE WARREN ACT.

4 (a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Interior

5 may—
2

•S 2213 RS

1 (1) enter into contracts with private entities

2 pursuant to the Act of February 21, 1911 (com3 monly known as the ‘‘Warren Act’’) (36 Stat. 925

4 et seq., chapter 141; 43 U.S.C. 523), for the im5 pounding, storage, and carriage of nonproject water

6 for domestic, municipal, fish and wildlife, industrial,

7 and other beneficial purposes, using any facilities as8 sociated with the Central Utah Project, Utah; and

9 (2) enter into agreements, under terms and

10 conditions authorized for contracts under such Act,

11 with appropriate officials of other Federal agencies,

12 municipalities, public water districts and agencies,

13 and States for impounding, storage, and carriage of

14 nonproject water for purposes described in para15 graph (1) using facilities referred to in such para16 graph.

17 (b) NONPROJECT WATER DEFINED.—In subsection

18 (a), the term ‘‘nonproject water’’ means water that is not

19 from a Federal Reclamation project.

20 SEC. 2. Subsection 301(d) of Public Law 102–575 (106

21 Stat. 4600, 4626) is amended by adding the following new

22 subparagraph at the end thereof:

23 ‘‘(8) Any employee or member of the Board of

24 Directors of the District may serve as a member of the

25 Commission.’’.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00118-CV

In the Interest of a Child §

§

§

§

§

From 325th District Court

of Tarrant County (325-554472-14)

April 7, 2016

Opinion by Justice Walker

Concurrence by Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellants Mother and Father shall pay all of the 

costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Sue Walker____________________

 Justice Sue Walker
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hiram Ortega, Appellant.

[47 NYS3d 908]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ethan Greenberg, J. at plea; Raymond L. Bruce, J. at sentencing), rendered December 10, 2015, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of three years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the sentence and remanding for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed.

The court should have granted defense counsel’s request for a 24-hour adjournment to review the presentence report, which had not been provided in advance of the sentencing date *(see*CPL 390.50 [2] [a]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.
NUMBER 13-13-00183-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant,

v.

RENE GUTIERREZ, Appellee.

On appeal from the 148th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court because the court reporter, Sandra Chavez, has 

failed to timely file the reporter’s record. The reporter’s record in this cause was 

originally due to be filed on May 20, 2013. The reporter has previously requested and 

received three prior extensions of time to file the record, granting the reporter until 

December 6, 2013 to file the record. To date, Ms. Chavez has not filed the reporter’s 
2

record. 

This sequence of events requires us to effectuate our responsibility to avoid further 

delay and to preserve the parties’ rights. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(a)(1). Accordingly, 

this appeal is ABATED and the cause REMANDED to the trial court.

Upon remand, the judge of the trial court shall immediately cause notice to be 

given and conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant has abandoned his appeal. 

If it is determined that appellant has not abandoned his appeal, the court shall further 

determine if appellant’s attorney of record continues to represent appellant and will 

diligently pursue this appeal. 

The court shall further determine if the reporter’s record, or any part thereof, has 

been lost or destroyed, and shall make appropriate findings under Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(f), 

if necessary. Otherwise, the court shall determine what steps are necessary to ensure 

the prompt preparation of a reporter's record, and shall enter any orders required to avoid 

further delay and to preserve the parties’ rights. 

The trial court shall prepare and file its findings and orders and cause them to be 

included in a supplemental clerk's record which should be submitted to the Clerk of this 

Court within thirty days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

21st day of January, 2014.
# L_2011161EN.01003401.xml

| 21.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 161/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 161/34

---

Corrigendum to Commission Decision 2011/332/EU of 7 June 2011 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for copying and graphic paper

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 149 of 8 June 2011
  )

On page 12, the title should read as follows:

for:

‘Commission Decision of 7 June 2011 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for copying and graphic paper

(notified under document C(2011) 3751)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2011/332/EU)’,

read:

‘Commission Decision of 7 June 2011 on establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for copying and graphic paper

(notified under document C(2011) 3751)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2011/333/EU)’.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 28, 2013

s1021 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2013

147132

LEONARD GUST and SHARON GUST,

Plaintiffs

- Appellees,

v SC: 147132

COA: 311844

Lenawee CC: 10

- 003769

- CZ

LENAWEE COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the Ap ril 9, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration as on leave granted.
No. 10-48.

#### Interior/Exterior Specialist Company, et al., Petitioners v. Trustees of the Painters Union Deposit Fund.

562 U.S. 891, 131 S. Ct. 248,

178 L. Ed. 2d 139,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6440.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 654.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10043

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jorge Alberto Spears, Jr.

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-194-6

______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jorge Alberto Spears, Jr., pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, and 

he was sentenced to 151 months of imprisonment and three years of 

supervised release. In the plea agreement, Spears waived his right to appeal 

his conviction and sentence, with certain limited exceptions.

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10043 Document: 00516884944 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2023
No. 23-10043

2

In this direct appeal from that sentence, Spears argues that the 

magistrate judge who conducted his plea colloquy did not comply with 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1)(N). That rule requires that, 

before accepting a plea of guilty, a court must “inform the defendant of, and 

determine that the defendant understands . . . the terms of any pleaagreement provision waiving the right to appeal . . . the sentence.” Id.

Because Spears did not raise this objection in the district court, our review is 

for plain error. See United States v. Oliver, 630 F.3d 397, 411 (5th Cir. 2011). 

The record reflects that the plea colloquy was sufficient to ensure that 

Spears understood the terms of the appeal waiver in accordance with Rule 

11(b)(1)(N), and that the appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary. See id. at 

411–12; United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005).

The magistrate judge specifically advised Spears that the plea 

agreement “contains a waiver of your right to appeal except under certain 

limited circumstances.” Following that admonishment, the magistrate judge 

confirmed that Spears had read and understood the appeal waiver provision 

and that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal as set forth 

in that provision. The magistrate judge also confirmed that Spears had read 

and understood the plea agreement prior to signing it. Moreover, the 

magistrate judge asked Spears if he had any questions about the information 

covered in the colloquy, and Spears said that he did not. Under these 

circumstances, Spears has not demonstrated any plain error with respect to 

the plea colloquy. See Oliver, 630 F.3d at 411–12.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-10043 Document: 00516884944 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2023
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



The Board of Directors
American Dental Partners, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.:
333-50605, 333-59075, 333-59077 and 333-59079) on Form S-8 of our report dated
February 11, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of American
Dental Partners, Inc., as of December 31, 1998 and 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, which report
appears in the December 31, 1999 Annual Report on Form 10-K of American Dental
Partners, Inc.



                                     /s/ KPMG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 15, 2000
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50267 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RAUL ARTURO HERRERA-OCHOA, also known as Martin David Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-01-CR-1923-ALL-DB

-------------------- August 21, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Raul Arturo Herrera-Ochoa appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Herrera-Ochoa complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior removal following an aggravated felony conviction. HeNo. 02-50267 -2- argues that the sentencing provision violates the Due Process Clause. Alternatively, Herrera-Ochoa contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Herrera-Ochoa acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
No. 10-5061.

#### Charnell Goodwin, Petitioner v. Barry Davis, Warden.

562 U.S. 901, 131 S. Ct. 235,

178 L. Ed. 2d 156,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6445.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32.2



MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



The undersigned, Susan E. Knight, the Chief Financial Officer of MTS Systems Corporation (the Company), has executed this Certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 28, 2008 (the Report).



The undersigned hereby certifies that:

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.

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 SEC or its staff upon request.

Date: August 4, 2008



/s/ SUSAN E. KNIGHTSusan E. KnightVice President and Chief Financial Officer








---