alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *Clark County, Respondent, v. McManus, Petitioner,*

No. 91963-1.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 72437-1-I, June 8, 2015, 188 Wn. App. 228. *Granted*December 2, 2015.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2992 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2992

 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2019

 Mr. Johnson of South Dakota introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 
                    higher wages to their employees.

    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 ``Rewarding Achievement and 
Incentivizing Successful Employees Act'' or the ``RAISE Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF HIGHER WAGES.

    Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(a)) 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(2) Notwithstanding a labor organization's exclusive 
representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and conditions of 
any collective bargaining contract or agreement then in effect, nothing 
in either--
            ``(A) section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(5), or
            ``(B) a collective bargaining contract or agreement renewed 
        or entered into after the date of enactment of the RAISE Act,
shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the unit greater 
wages, pay, or other compensation for, or by reason of, his or her 
services as an employee of such employer, than provided for in such 
contract or agreement.''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 10-7875.

#### Marlin E. Jones, Petitioner v. Midstates Development, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 1197, 131 S. Ct. 1054,

178 L. Ed. 2d 860,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 990.

January 24, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Nebraska dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Exhibit 11.1



                 ENERGY CONVERSION DEVICES, INC. and SUBSIDIARY

                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSSES) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                    1998             1997             1996
                                                    ----             ----             ----
<S>                                              <C>              <C>               <C>    
Basic
   Weighted average number of shares
      outstanding                                11,116,619       10,729,802        9,370,841

   Net income (loss)                           $(16,664,999)    $(17,954,612)      $1,054,269

        Net income (Loss) Per Share            $      (1.50)    $      (1.67)      $      .11
                                               =============    =============      ==========

Diluted
   Weighted average number of shares
      outstanding                                11,116,619       10,729,802        9,370,841
   Weighted average shares for dilutive  
      securities                                          0                0        1,515,067
                                               ------------     ------------       ----------
        Average number of shares
           Outstanding and potential  
           dilutive shares                       11,116,619       10,729,802       10,885,908

   Net income (loss)                           $(16,664,999)    $(17,954,612)      $1,054,269

        Net Income (Loss) Per Share            $      (1.50)    $      (1.67)      $      .10
                                               =============    =============      ==========



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

**RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, William L. Stephens, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of First Niles Financial, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material
aspects the consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

> a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
> material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
> being prepared;
> 
> b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
> the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
> 
> c) disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
> fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

> a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
> registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
> 
> b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
> financial reporting

Date: August 13, 2004

/s/ William L. StephensWilliam L. Stephens
President and Chief Executive Officer
Find,

Treat,

Cure 

TB

Disease

Track 

Progress

Test & 

Treat 

Latent TB

Infection

Develop & Implement

New Tools

Mobilize 

Support

CS263071

Fight TB 

Locally &

Globally

MARCH 24 - WORLD TB DAY 

Share

Our 

Stories
Docket No. FAA-2015-8426 Dir ID 2015-NM-006-AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 1/15/15

Regional Airline Association 1/15/15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 1/15/15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 1/15/15
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                           18494
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    19690
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1090
<INVENTORY>                                      10500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 52627
<PP&E>                                           87413
<DEPRECIATION>                                   53853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   94957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10307
<BONDS>                                            195
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         53125
<OTHER-SE>                                      120282
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     94957
<SALES>                                         153726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                153726
<CGS>                                           105232
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   105232
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 28320
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  68
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  21485
<INCOME-TAX>                                      7992
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              13493
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     13493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .82
        

</TABLE>
No. 10-7684.

#### Paul Craig Stauffer, Petitioner v. P. L. Vazquez, Warden.

562 U.S. 1204, 131 S. Ct. 1052,

178 L. Ed. 2d 872,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 958.

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 23

                                                       [ARTHUR ANDERSEN LOGO]


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To Three-Five Systems, Inc.:


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our reports included in this Form 10-K into Three-Five Systems, Inc. and
subsidiaries' previously filed Registration Statement File Nos. 333-87875,
33-88706, 333-57933, 33-77600, 33-76090, 33-36968, 333-32795 and 333-50689.


                                                         /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP


Phoenix, Arizona,
  March 8, 2000.
•

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 29

Corrections to Listing of Commercial Chemical

Products and Appendix VIII Constituents

51 FR 28296-28310

August 6, 1986

(Non-HSWA Cluster III)

Note: On April 22, 1988 (Revision Checklist 46) extensive technical corrections

were made to the lists addressed by this checklist because there were so many

spelling and formatting errors found in these lists. Consequently, States may elect

to revise their rules in accordance with Revision Checklist 46 rather than this

checklist when amending their code.

STATE ANALOG IS:

FEDERAL

REQUIREMENT

FEDERAL

RCRA

CITATION

ANALOGOUS

STATE

CITATION

EQUIVALENT

MORE BROADSTRIN- ER IN

GENT SCOPE

•

PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

SUBPART D - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

DISCARDED COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, OFF-SPECIFICATION SPECIES, CONTAINER

RESIDUES, AND SPILL RESIDUES THEREOF WAC 173-303

correct specific

listings 261,33(e) -9903 X

t add chemical

abstract numbers 261. 33(e) -9903 X

correct specific

listings 261,33(f) -9903 X

t add chemical

abstract numbers 261.33(f) -9903 X

APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261

HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS

correct specific

listings Appendix VIII

t add chemical

abstract numbers Appendix VIII

WAC 173-303

-9905

-9905

X

NUMBERS NOT ADDED

• August 6, 1986 - Page 1 of 1
NO. 12-21-00091-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ROBERT HALLETT, M.D., 

APPELLANT

V.

KAYWIN CARTER, M.D., DAVID 

BAILEY, M.D., RAVINDER 

BACHIREDDY, M.D., AND 

MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM OF 

TEXAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A 

CHI ST. LUKE'S HEALTH 

MEMORIAL LUFKIN,

APPELLEES

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 159TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Appellant, Robert Hallett, M.D., filed a notice of appeal on June 15, 2021. On June 16, 

the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the notice of appeal failed to contain the 

information specifically required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5 and Section 

51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5 (service); see 

also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must

be served on each court reporter responsible for preparing reporter’s record). The notice warned 

that, unless Appellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or before July 16, the appeal would be 

referred to the Court for dismissal. This deadline passed and Appellant has not filed a compliant 

notice of appeal or otherwise responded to this Court’s June 16 notice.

Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 9.5 and Section 51.017(a), 

the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative after giving ten days’
2

notice to all parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal is subject to dismissal because 

appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a notice from the 

clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time).

Opinion delivered July 30, 2021. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
3

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 30, 2021

NO. 12-21-00091-CV

ROBERT HALLETT, M.D.,

Appellant

V.

KAYWIN CARTER, M.D., DAVID BAILEY, M.D., RAVINDER BACHIREDDY, M.D., 

AND MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM OF TEXAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A CHI 

ST. LUKE'S HEALTH MEMORIAL LUFKIN,

Appellees

Appeal from the 159th District Court

of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CV-00065-20-02)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, 

it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the appeal be, 

and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-30577

Conference Calendar

 

ROBERT DEEMER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KELLY WARD; BECKY MOSS; BRAD ROGERS;

LONNIE NAIL; FRANCIS RASPBERRY; TOMMY

GARRETT; RAY HANSON; SHERMAN POWELL; 

ANNE BRYANT; STATE SELF INSURANCE FUND;

NOLAN SLACK; FRANK HAMMOND; DAVID THOMAS;

C.A. LEWIS; SARAH BILBERRY; MILLS,

Lieutenant; MARK FOSTER; MARY HAMILTON,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CV-1322

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

April 13, 2000

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Deemer, Louisiana state prisoner #120219, appeals

from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit as

frivolous. He argues that the magistrate judge should have

recused himself, that he was improperly convicted of an undefined 
No. 99-30577

-2-

prison disciplinary rule, and that he had been denied access to

the courts. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Deemer’s claim that he was improperly convicted in a

prison disciplinary proceeding is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477 (1994), and is not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983

proceeding. The district court did not abuse its discretion by

dismissing Deemer’s complaint as frivolous. See Siglar v.

Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Deemer’s claims

that he was denied access to the Administrative Remedy Procedure,

that he had been denied privileges in extended lockdown, that his

good-time credits had been improperly revoked, and that he had

been deprived of his Scrabble game are not addressed by the court

as these claims are deemed abandoned on appeal. See Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME (LOSS) AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>0000030927
<NAME> Eagle Picher Industries
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          13,680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  146,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,529
<INVENTORY>                                     88,873
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               266,586
<PP&E>                                         279,061
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,524
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 816,326
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          156,022
<BONDS>                                        459,183
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       180,005
<OTHER-SE>                                     (12,007)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   816,326
<SALES>                                        645,984
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               645,984
<CGS>                                          502,973
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  502,973
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               127,541
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,064)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (4,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14,364)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,364)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (143,640.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (143,640.00)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2017053EN.01000302.xml

| 20.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark — Masco Denmark ApS, Damixa ApS v Skatteministeriet

(Case C-593/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation concerning thin capitalisation of subsidiaries - Inclusion in the taxable income of a lending company of the loan interest paid by a non-resident borrowing subsidiary - Tax exemption for interest paid by a resident borrowing subsidiary - Balanced allocation between Member States of the power to impose taxes - Need to prevent the risk of tax avoidance))

(2017/C 053/04)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Masco Denmark ApS, Damixa ApS

Applicants:

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a resident company a tax exemption for interest paid by a resident subsidiary, in so far as that subsidiary is not entitled to a tax deduction for the corresponding interest expenditure by reason of the rules limiting the deduction of interest paid in cases of thin capitalisation, but which excludes the exemption that would result from the application of its own thin-capitalisation legislation in the case where the subsidiary is resident in another Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.

1

---
1

Sutton, Lisa

From: Brachtl, Megan

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:51 PM

To: Sutton, Lisa

Subject: FW: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

Attachments: McCabe letter to air directors final SSM SIP call 05-22-15.pdf

Megan V. Brachtl, Group Leader

State and Local Programs Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(919) 541‐2648

brachtl.megan@epa.gov

From: Daly, Carl  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 3:51 PM

To: Brachtl, Megan

Cc: Clark, Adam

Subject: CO: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

FYI ‐ CO

Carl Daly, Director

Air Program

303‐312‐6416

From: Daly, Carl  

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:32 AM

To: William.Allison@dphe.state.co.us

Cc: Monica Morales

Subject: SSM SIP Call Final Action Notification to States

Will

This email is a follow‐up my update on the SAD call about the startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) SIP

call.  Colorado will be included in the SIP call.

The information below is from headquarters.

The EPA Administrator signed a final action today to ensure states have in place air pollution rules that apply to sources

at all times, including when the source is operating during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM).  

This action responds to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians concerning the

treatment of excess emissions at industrial facilities during SSM operations, specifically how those emissions are treated

in state implementation plan (SIP) provisions that the EPA previously approved. Also, as part of this action, EPA has

revised and clarified its policy concerning SSM provisions consistent with the Clean Air Act.
2

The EPA is calling for 36 states, including your state, to make changes to their SIPs, to protect public health and ensure

consistency with the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s current SSM Policy.  Your state will have 18 months to submit revisions

of your state plan to EPA. Your state’s revised SIP is due to EPA by November 22, 2016.  

As part of our notification to your state about this final SIP call, attached to this email is a letter from the EPA’s Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe. To inform you of the details on the final action, including

the specific SIP provisions your state needs to address, we have posted a pre‐publication version of the action on our

website at:  http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/emissions.html.  

Carl Daly, Director

Air Program

303‐312‐6416
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2010 - 0480 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM035AD

747 -25A3555 IN 01 --- 12/10/09 747 -25A3555 IN 02 --- 6/17/10 747 -25A3555 IN 04 --- 2/10/12

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federa l Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008