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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998             OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              NOV-1-1997              NOV-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998             OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         141,228                  45,332
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,016,159               1,728,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000                  90,000
<INVENTORY>                                    775,735                 820,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,040,225               2,656,109
<PP&E>                                      20,279,068              21,731,670
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,090,817               9,772,733
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,162,691              15,540,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,063,898               5,550,638
<BONDS>                                      6,699,461               5,511,792
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         7,386                   7,407
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,197,041               3,250,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,162,691              15,540,209
<SALES>                                     11,578,705              11,728,537
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,578,705              11,728,537
<CGS>                                        6,213,239               5,973,309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,213,239               5,973,309
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,012,097               1,217,757
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                280,310                  70,547
<INCOME-TAX>                                   110,485                  27,711
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   169,825                  42,836
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.023                   0.006
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.023                   0.006


</TABLE>
|   |  (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. |

|                     |   |                                    |   |
|--------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: May 23, 2011 | By:    | /s/ Colin Hendrick       |   |
|                     |   | Colin Hendrick                          |   |
|                     |   | President (Principal Executive Officer) |   |
|                     |   |                                    |   |
# C_2019220EN.01000202.xml

| 1.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — A-Fonds v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

(Case C-598/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Existing aid and new aid - Concept of new aid - Refund of dividend tax - Scheme widened to companies established outside the Member State concerned - Free movement of capital - Obligations of national courts)

(2019/C 220/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A-Fonds

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 107 and 108 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court cannot assess whether a residence condition, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, complies with Article 56(1) EC, now Article 63(1) TFEU, where the scheme for the refund of dividend tax concerned constitutes an aid scheme.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.

---
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 27, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15-1849

Lower Tribunal No. 11-25865

________________

The State of Florida,

Appellant,

vs.

Darrell Smith,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Diane V. Ward,

Judge.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jonathan Tanoos, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellant.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Special

Assistant Public Defender, and Oscar A. Quintero, Certified Legal Intern, for

appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, LAGOA, and LOGUE, JJ.

LOGUE, J.
The State of Florida appeals a decision labeled “Order Declaring Mistrial.”

Given the trial court did not issue its decision until more than a month after the

jury was discharged and the verdict was rendered by being filed in the clerk’s

records, the decision is actually an order granting a new trial. See Keene Bros.

Trucking v. Pennell, 614 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (Fla. 1993) (“[W]hen the judge

reserves ruling on a mistrial motion until after the trial, or the motion is not made

until after the discharge of the jury, then the motion must be considered a motion

for new trial.”). Section 924.07(1)(b) of Florida Statutes, therefore, provides the

State authority to appeal. See State ex rel. Sebers v. McNulty, 326 So. 2d 17, 18

(Fla. 1975) (“Although the motion was denominated a motion for mistrial,

correctly labeled at the time it was made during the course of trial, it was in legal

effect when ruled upon a motion for new trial. As such, the order was

appealable.”). State v. Fudge, 645 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), which held that

the State cannot appeal a judgment of acquittal on a count of an indictment on

which the jury deadlocked, is inapposite because it did not involve setting aside a

verdict after the verdict was rendered and the jury was discharged.

Turning to the merits, we hold that no abuse of discretion occurred in

granting the new trial. See generally State v. Williams, 478 So. 2d 412, 413 (Fla.

3d DCA 1985) (“It is a well-established rule of law that the trial judge has wide

discretion in the matter of granting or denying motions for new trial and that an

2
appellate court will not overturn such a ruling unless some abuse of discretion is

shown.”).

Affirmed.

3
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 23 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 23

   Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of Homeland 
 Security relating to ``Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of 
   Employment Authorization and Documentation for Certain Employment 
              Authorization Document Renewal Applicants''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 16, 2025

 Mr. Arrington (for himself, Mr. Self, and Mr. Moore of West Virginia) 
  submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Disapproving of the rule submitted by the Department of Homeland 
 Security relating to ``Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of 
   Employment Authorization and Documentation for Certain Employment 
              Authorization Document Renewal Applicants''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Homeland Security relating to 
``Increase of the Automatic Extension Period of Employment 
Authorization and Documentation for Certain Employment Authorization 
Document Renewal Applicants'' (89 Fed. Reg. 101208), and such rule 
shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 10.46 COMPANY:
    
    GlobalSantaFe Corporation (the Company)ITEM:
    
    Preambles and Resolutions of the Board of DirectorsSUBJECT:
    
    Non-Employee Director CompensationDATE:,
    
    December 16, 2003
 WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of this Board of Directors has
recommended a new schedule of compensation for the Companys non-employee
directors; and WHEREAS, having carefully considered the recommendations of the
Compensation Committee, this Board of Directors desires to approve a new
non-employee director compensation schedule; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, effective January 1, 2004, and until
such time as revised by resolution of this Board of Directors, the Companys
non-employee directors shall be compensated for their services as directors of
the Company in accordance with the compensation schedule annexed hereto as
Exhibit A; and it was further RESOLVED that the proper officers of the Company be and hereby are
authorized and directed to do or cause to be done any and all such acts and
things, make any and all such payments, and negotiate, execute and deliver, for
and on behalf of the Company and in its name, any and all such documents,
papers, instruments and agreements as they may deem necessary or desirable to
effect the intent and purposes of these resolutions.




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A GLOBALSANTAFE CORPORATION Schedule of Compensation for Non-Employee Directors
(Effective January 1, 2004)   Annual Retainer
    
    $
    32,000Committee Chairman Annual Retainer:Audit Committee
    
    $
    7,500Other Committees
    
    $
    5,000Board Meeting Fee
    
    $
    2,000
    (1)Committee Meeting Fee
    
    $
    2,000
    (1)Special Assignment Fee (per day)
    
    $
    1,000New Member Stock Option Grant (#)
    
    
    10,000
    (2)Annual Stock Option Grant (#)
    
    
    6,000
    (2)Annual Restricted Stock Grant (#)
    
    
    3,000
    (3)
   (1)
    
    The fee will be $1,000 if participation is by telephone.(2)
    
    All stock options will vest 50% one year from date of grant and the
remaining 50% two years from date of grant. The other terms of the stock
options will be determined by the Compensation Committee, which will make the
annual grant at its discretion on the date of adjournment of each annual
general meeting of shareholders.(3)
    
    The terms of the restricted stock will be determined by the Compensation
Committee, which will make the annual grant at its discretion on the date of
adjournment of each annual general meeting of shareholders.
Exhibit 13.1



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of EDP  Energias de Portugal, S.A. (the Company), does hereby certify to such officers knowledge that:



The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the Form 20-F) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |                             
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------
|Date: September 30, 2005 |  | /s/ João Ramalho Talone     
|                         |  | João Ramalho Talone         
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer     
|                         | 
|Date: September 30, 2005 |  | /s/ Rui Miguel Horta e Costa
|                         |  | Rui Miguel Horta e Costa    
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer     



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EDP  Energias de Portugal, S.A. and will be retained by EDP  Energias de Portugal, S.A. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order filed, October 2 4 , 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00679

- CV

____________ GREAT SOUTHWEST REGI ONAL CENTER, LLC , Appellant

V.
ACSWD, LP , Appellee

On Appeal from the 53rd District Court

Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 15

- 000558



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due September 4, 2018

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On October 8, 2018, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 15 days. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We o rder Leah Hayes , the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 15 days of the date of this order

. No further extension will be entertainedabsent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly

responsible for ensurin g that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Leah Hayes does not timely file the record as ordered, we may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the
failure to file the r ecord.

PER CURIAM
Case 3:05-cr-00075-N Document 419 Filed 03/21/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 837
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND COOPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Precision Auto Care, Inc. (the “Registrant”), on Form 10-KSBfor the year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), Louis M. Brown, Jr., Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Registrant and Robert R. Falconi, Chief Operating Officer of theRegistrant, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to hisknowledge:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a)or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of the operations of the Registrant.
|                              | **Signature** | ** **                                | ** ** |                          | **Title** | ** ** | ** ** |  | **Date** | ** ** |
|------------------------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------|-----------|------------|------------|--|----------|------------|
| /s/ LOUIS M. BROWN, JR. |          | Chief Executive  Officer                  |       | September 26,  2005 |
| Louis M. Brown, Jr.     |          | and Chairman of the  Board                |       |                     |
|                         |          | (Principal Executive  Officer)            |       |                     |
| /s/ ROBERT R. FALCONI        |          | President and  Chief Operating Officer    |       | September 26,  2005 |
| Robert R. Falconi            |          | (Principal Financial  Accounting Officer) |       |                     |

 

[A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Precision Auto Care, Inc. andwill be retained by Precision Auto Care, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]

----
Third District Court of Appeal 

State of Florida 

Opinion filed March 6, 2024. 

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. 

________________ 

No. 3D23-0308 

Lower Tribunal No. 22-950 

________________ 

Roy Otero, et al., 

Appellants, 

vs. 

The American Automobile Association (Incorporated) 

and Auto Club Group, Inc., 

Appellees. 

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William 

Thomas, Judge. 

Panter, Panter & Sampedro, P.A., Joshua L. Wintle, and David 

Sampedro, for appellants. 

Milber, Makris, Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, Crystal L. Arocha, 

and Michael J. Lynott, for appellees. 

Before LOGUE, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and LINDSEY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See McCain v. Fla. Power Corp., 593 So. 2d 500, 503 (Fla. 

1992) (“[D]uty exists as a matter of law and is not a factual question for the 

jury to decide.”); Jenkins v. W.L. Roberts, Inc., 851 So. 2d 781, 783 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 2003) (“The duty element of negligence is a threshold legal question; if 

no legal duty exists, then no action for negligence may lie.”).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

GLORIA FORD, on behalf of §

KAISER-BERNARD FORD III, §

 §

Petitioner, §

 § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0723-D

VS. §

 §

JIM BOWLES, et al., § 

 §

Respondents. §

ORDER

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files, and records in this case, and the

findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the court concludes that the findings and

conclusions are correct and are therefore adopted. This action is dismissed without prejudice for

lack of standing or, alternatively, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

SO ORDERED.

June 21, 2005.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00723-D Document 9 Filed 06/21/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 38
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dennis G. Dracup, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, 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 such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the 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 officers 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 we 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 change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 officers 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control 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: May 15, 2006
|                   | 
|By:                |  | /s/ Dennis G. Dracup                
|                   |  | Dennis G. Dracup                    
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
OFFICE OF THE All-ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bmtoreble John Ii. Red, Commlrcioasr 

B-mu 0r labor Statistica 

Au8tl.n,Te=as 

Dear Stir 

You bars requeste at to prepwe 8 form 

ror 8ubpoeM to 

ubor Statietias 

matter8 related t 

form la enalomd herenloa of thle dep8rtmnt aa 

for rerving such rubpoenas 

at fun& svallable to the Bureau 

required of the said bureau, . . . .” 

knd krtlcle 5150, Vemon*ts Revleed Civil Statutes, 

coatalae a similar povlaloa. 

The ourrent biennial opproprl&~~ion to G&e Bweau of 

Labor Statistlae (s. 9. No. 332, hats 08th ~gialature, Reg. 
Honorable John D. Reed, pege 2 

Seas., Ch. 400, p. 958) contalna the folloulng lten of appropriation from the General Rev6nUe Fund: 

‘For the Years 

“BegInning 

“September 1, 

Emliag 

1943 

August 31, 

1945 

It 

. . . . 

'15. 33quipment, Statloncry, Printing, Postage, orrice Supplies, 

Telephone, Telesxwph, 

Bxpre.8 and Contlngent Expense.........$3,000.00 $3,000.00' 

It appears that the Lcgfrlaturs, lu makq this approprlation, had la contemplation the uee of the tern ocmtlngent 

expense” ln the sense oi general items of expanse not provided 

for 8pa0m0rliy. State v. Ktitz, 144 H. E. 120, 124; 110 Ohio 

State 332. See also OUT Opinion No. O-1332. The oocltr of procurlag aervloe of subpoenas come ulthln this da88 of expenses. 

It 1s therefore the opinion of thla departasnt that 

the fear of peace orfloars for sarviqt Irubpoenar for the Bureau of Labor Statistics my be pid out of raid oontirrgsnt fund. 

Yours very truly 

WRArdb 

ATTORREY OBHSRAL OF TEXAS 

By &. fl- QJ-LU. R. Allen 

Assistant 

Enclosure
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 19, 2023

No. 04-23-00215-CR

IN RE Edwin Abiel ESCOBAR AGUILAR

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On March 7, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion 

for stay. Because relator has obtained the requested relief, the petition for writ of mandamus is 

DISMISSED as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The stay imposed on March 8, 2023 is 

LIFTED. 

It is so ORDERED on April 19, 2023.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of April, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13321CR, styled State of Texas v. Edwin Abiel Escobar Aguilar, pending 

in the County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Todd Alexander Blomerth presiding.
Case 3:05-cv-01494-B Document 15 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 144