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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          57,234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                85,708
<PP&E>                                           6,456
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,768
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,774
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,732
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,775
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,733
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   342
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,697
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,114
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,610
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,610
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35


</TABLE>
No. 10-5380.

#### George William Blood, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 918, 131 S. Ct. 286,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6902,

178 L. Ed. 2d 188,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### In the Matter of Leonardo Thomas B., Respondent, v Katherine F., Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 293]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Lauren Norton Lerner, Ref.), entered on or about May 21, 2015, which, upon a fact-finding determination that respondent committed assault in the second degree and aggravated harassment in the first degree, granted the petition and issued a two-year order of protection in favor of petitioner, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the order of protection vacated, and the petition dismissed.

A fair preponderance of the evidence at the fact-finding hearing does not support the finding that respondent committed assault in the second degree. There is simply no evidence that petitioner sustained serious physical injury *(see*Penal Law §§ 120.05; 10.00 [10]; *Matter of Chigusa Hosono D. v Jason George D.,*137 AD3d 631, 632 [1st Dept 2016]).

The Referee also erred in determining that respondent’s actions constituted aggravated harassment in the first degree, since aggravated harassment in the first degree is not a designated family offense *(see*Family Ct Act § 812 [1]). To the extent the Referee meant to find that respondent committed acts constituting harassment in the first degree (Penal Law § 240.25), which is a designated family offense *(see*Family Ct Act § 812 [1]), a preponderance of the record evidence does not support a finding that respondent engaged in a course of conduct or repeatedly committed acts that placed petitioner in reasonable fear of physical injury (Penal Law § 240.25). Petitioner testified concerning only a single altercation, and an isolated incident is insufficient to support a finding of harassment in the first degree *(see Matter of Ebony J. v Clarence D.,*46 AD3d 309 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
No. 10-5615.

#### Gilbert L. Dowdy, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 931, 131 S. Ct. 327,

178 L. Ed. 2d 213,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7422.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 10-6064.

#### Felipe J. Perales, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 944, 131 S. Ct. 367,

178 L. Ed. 2d 237,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7267.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 370 Fed. Appx. 967.
# DLA Energy Europe and Africa changes leadership

/ Published June 10, 2021
KLEBER-KASERNE, Germany, 
In a time-honored tradition, Defense Logistics Agency Energy Europe & Africa Commander Army Lt. Col. Donna Welch transferred her authority and responsibility during a virtual change of command ceremony on Kleber-Kaserne, Germany, June 4.

Incoming Commander Army Lt. Col. Benverren Fortune joins the DLA Energy team from DLA Troop Support Europe & Africa, where he served as Operations Officer since 2019.

“What my team accomplishes every day is nothing short of amazing and requires skill, devotion, and selfless service,” Welch said. “Successfully supporting exercises and contingencies in the theaters of operation, performing secure fuel testing operations for the United States President, and establishing new fuel supply chains in Africa...we are committed to serving our customers!”

The DLA Energy regional office provides comprehensive energy solutions in both the U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command areas of responsibility, as well as into northern Iraq.

Welch was presented the Defense Meritorious Service Medal for her accomplishments. Her next assignment is at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island.

“Team DLA Energy Europe and Africa—thank you for your service!” Welch said. “Thank you to my chain of command for the opportunity to lead this great organization.”

Fortune earned his commission at the Citadel in 2003, as a Quartermaster Officer.

“Thank you, Donna, for a superb transition. You leave behind a legacy of success that we will continue and exceed,” Fortune said. “As most of us know, the greatest weapon in our military runs on water... and everything else runs on fuel. Let us continue to ‘Energize the Force!’”

DLA Energy Europe & Africa’s geographic responsibility includes 55.8 million square miles, covering 103 nations in all of Europe and Africa, and extends from 500 miles off the Atlantic coast of the United States to the Pacific coast of Russia. It includes two thirds of the Earth’s coastlines and spans 18 time zones.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 4435** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RICARDO RAMIREZ

- MONTES, a/k/a Alejandro Navarro

- Barron , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United St ates District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. Henry F. Floyd , District Judge. ( 8:08

- cr - 01022

- HFF

- 1 )

Submitted : July 15, 2010 Decided: July 22, 2010

Before MOTZ and GREGORY , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. William Walter Wilkins, III, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina ; Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Ass istant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM Ricardo Ramirez

- Montes appeals from his 46

- month sentence imposed after pleading guilty to one count o f illegal reentry of a deported alien after conviction for an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) , (b)(2) (2006)
. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are

no meritorious issues for appeal. Ramirez

- Montes was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Upon review of the transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that the district court complied with the req uirements of Rule 11. F urther , the district court
pr operly calculated the advisory G uidelines range and imposed a
sentence a t the bottom of the applicable G uidelines range. The record establishes that Ramirez

- Montes’s sentence is procedurally and substan tively reasonable. See Gall v. United
States , 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) ( providing that review of sentence is for abuse of discretion). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States3 for further review. If the client requests that a peti tion be filed, but counsel believes that such filing would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argum ent because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2468

To permit the Secretary of Agriculture to make available certain amounts

for FmHA farm ownership, operating, or emergency loans, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 27 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. DORGAN, and Mr. BUMPERS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the

third time, and passed

A BILL

To permit the Secretary of Agriculture to make available

certain amounts for FmHA farm ownership, operating,

or emergency loans, 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. AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS FOR FMHA FARM

4 OWNERSHIP, OPERATING, OR EMERGENCY

5 LOANS.

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Sec7 retary of Agriculture—
2

•S 2468 CPS

1 (1) from the date of enactment of this Act until

2 September 30, 1994, may transfer funds so as to

3 make available—

4 (A) the amounts that would otherwise be

5 available for gross obligations for the principal

6 amount of direct farm ownership or emergency

7 loans as authorized by sections 308 and 309 of

8 the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development

9 Act (7 U.S.C. 1928 and 1929); and

10 (B) the amounts that would otherwise be

11 available for the costs of such direct farm own12 ership or emergency loans (including the cost of

13 modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of

14 the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2

15 U.S.C. 661a));

16 for any gross obligations or costs of farm ownership,

17 operating, or emergency loans or credit sales, except

18 that the amounts that would otherwise be available

19 for such costs of such emergency loans may be ex20 pended only for such costs of guaranteed subsidized

21 operating loans or credit sales; and

22 (2) after September 30, 1994, may not expend

23 funds, or disburse any new loans, made available by
3

•S 2468 CPS

1 a transfer described in paragraph (1) for fiscal year

2 1994.

Æ
# C_2014085EN.01001002.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 2 July 2013 — SC Schuster & Co Ecologic SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu

(Case C-371/13)

2014/C 85/17

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC Schuster & Co Ecologic SRL

Applicant:

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Județului Sibiu

Defendant:

By Order of 7 November 2013, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) finds that it clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred to it by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania).

---
Amendment to the Executive Deferred Comp Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 AMENDMENT TO THE VIEWPOINT INTERNATIONAL, INC. 
 EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
  
 Pursuant to § 8 of the Viewpoint International, Inc. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), Viewpoint International, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby amends the Plan as follows: 
  
 1. 
  
 Effective as of January 1, 2005, Section 1.18 of the Plan shall be amended to read as follows: 
  
 “The Plan Administrator means a committee of at least three (3) persons
appointed by the Company.” 
  
 2. 
  
 Effective as of January 1, 2005, Section 3.1 of the Plan shall be amended to
read as follows: 
  
 “3.1 Eligibility and
Participation. Subject to the conditions and limitations of the Plan, the following persons are eligible to participate in the Plan: Any Employee who is employed by the Employer and who is determined by the Employer, in its sole discretion, to
be both (i) a member of a select group of management or highly compensated employees and (ii) eligible to participate in the Plan. Any individuals specified by the Employer may be changed by action of the Employer. An Employee shall become a
Participant in the Plan upon the execution and filing with the Plan Administrator of a written election to defer a portion of the Employee’s Compensation. A Participant shall remain a Participant until the entire balance of the
Participant’s Deferred Compensation Account has been distributed.” 
  
 3. 
  
 Except as specifically set
forth herein, the terms of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed on the date set forth below. 
  

			
	VIEWPOINT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Dominic C. Mazzone

	 Title:
	 	 Vice President and Secretary

		
	 Date:
	 	 November 29, 2004
#### Com. v. Laureano

08/30/2016

226 EAL (2016)

Denied
# United States Cou rt of Appeals For the Seventh Ci rcuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 August 2, 2002 Before Hon. HARLI

NGTON WOOD, JR., Circuit Judge Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL

S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
No. 01-1952 IN RE: ABBOTT L

ABORATORIES DERIVATI

VE SHAREHOLDER LI TIGATION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division No. 99-C-7246 James B. Moran, Judge
.

O R D E R The opinion of this court issued on June 6, 2002, is hereby withdraw n. A revised opinion will be issued at a later date.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7902

MICHAEL MCEVILY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus OFFICER KEATON; OFFICER HUMPHRIES; JANE DOE, a/k/a Miss Sue, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-279) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael McEvily, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael McEvily seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because McEvily’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 17, 2001. Giving him the benefit of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) and Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988), McEvily’s notice of appeal was filed, at the earliest, on October 28, 2001. Because McEvily failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Employee Spotlight: Joseph “Jody” Beall, IV

/ Published May 3, 2021
RICHMOND, VA, 
*Employee spotlight regularly features outstanding non-supervisory personnel from throughout the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and other DLA employees on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia. Organizational directors may submit names of employees they wish to feature in this column to DLA Aviation Public Affairs. For more information, call (804) 279-3139.*

**Name:**  Joseph “Jody” Beall, IV

**Organization:** DLA Aviation at Cherry Point, North Carolina

**Years of Service:** 3.5 years

**What is your job title, and what do you do, specifically?**  I’m a quality assurance specialist. In this role, I manage, maintain and create local stock numbers. I also verify stock levels and inspect products to ensure they are within required specifications. Furthermore, I work closely with other divisions within DLA to ensure that material master records are complete and accurate and reach out to approved manufacturers and vendors to ensure the warfighter is receiving the correct items.

**What do you like most about your job?**  I love the teamwork between my fellow quality assurance specialists. It’s like we are family.

**What is your fondest memory of working for DLA Aviation?**My fondest memory I have of working at DLA Aviation here at Cherry Point, North Carolina, is my first day. My team was truly professional and very welcoming.

**If you could speak directly to the warfighters you support, what would you tell them?** I would tell them to keep doing great things! I appreciate everything you do for our awesome country!

**What was your first job?** My first job was working at a McDonalds in Burlington City, New Jersey.

**What are some of your passions outside of work?** Some of my passions outside of work are hanging out with my soulmate and beautiful grandchildren.

**What’s the most thrilling/adventurous thing you have ever done?** This is easy. It’s when I joined the United States Marine Corps in 1989 and retired as a master sergeant in 2013. I was an aircraft rescue and firefighting specialist. I loved my job and was truly blessed to have served with the most incredible Marines during my time.

**If you could pick a personal motto, what would it be?** That motto would be this - Be a better man today than I was yesterday.

**Who is the most influential person in your life, past or present?** The most influential person in my life is my 95-year old grandmother. She is under five feet tall and the strongest woman I know. She is very courageous, resilient and knowledgeable. She is a great leader who created her own path to follow after life had thrown her many curve balls.
No. 09-1467.

#### World Trade Center Families for Proper Burial, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. City of New York, New York, et al.

562 U.S. 835, 131 S. Ct. 144,

178 L. Ed. 2d 37,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5773.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 359 Fed. Appx. 177.
No. 12-8808.

#### Mendoza Martinez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 21.1
SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    Relationship1)
    
    Eastern Washakie Midstream Pipeline LLC,
a Wyoming LLC
    
    Wholly owned subsidiary of Double Eagle Petroleum Co.2)
    
    Petrosearch Energy Corporation ,
a Nevada Corporation
    
    Wholly owned subsidiary of Double Eagle Petroleum Co.3)
    
    Petrosearch Operating Company, LLC ,
a Texas LLC
    
    Wholly owned subsidiary of Double Eagle Petroleum Co.4)
    
    Wilcox Petrosearch, LLC
a Texas LLC
    
    Wholly owned subsidiary of Double Eagle Petroleum Co.5)
    
    Anadarko Petrosearch, LLC
a Texas LLC
    
    Wholly owned subsidiary of Double Eagle Petroleum Co.6)
    
    Barnett Petrosearch, LLC
a Texas LLC
    
    Wholly owned subsidiary of Double Eagle Petroleum Co.7)
    
    Beacon Petrosearch, LLC
a Texas LLC
    
    Wholly owned subsidiary of Double Eagle Petroleum Co.8)
    
    Guidance Petrosearch, LLC
a Texas LLC
    
    Wholly owned subsidiary of Double Eagle Petroleum Co.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus D ismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

February 21 , 2013

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00085

- CR

IN RE MARTIN VASQUEZ , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 351st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1352006



### M E M OR A N DU M OP I N I ON
On August 28, 2012, relator Martin Vasquez was convicted of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements and sentenced to eight years in prison. On February 1, 2013, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this2

c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. A pp. P. 52. In the petition, relator complains that his counsel on appeal is not effective and relator attempts to raise issues challenging his conviction.
Relator seeks post

- conviction habeas relief. Although courts of appeals have jurisdiction over crim inal matters, only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters related to final post

- conviction felony proceedings. Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). This includes reques ts for habeas relief based on assertions of void
convictions. See In re Altschul , 207 S.W.3d 427, 430 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2006, orig. proceeding)
Because we do not have jurisdiction over the requested relief, the petition for
writ of mandamus is ordered dism issed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Busby.
Do Not Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).