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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         934,701
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,299<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               536,452
<PP&E>                                      35,551,275<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                            (24,262,897)<F3>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,767,830
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          838,450
<BONDS>                                     16,707,392<F4>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   (4,778,012)<F5>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,767,830
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,500,390<F6>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,570,017<F7>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             679,996
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,206<F8>
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   248,171<F9>
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F9>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F9>
<FN>
<F1>Includes all receivables grouped in "prepaid expenses and other assets"
on the Balance Sheet.
<F2>Multi-family complexes of $35,203,676 and deferred expenses of $347,599.
<F3>Accumulated depreciation of $24,004,066 and accumulated amortization
of deferred expenses of $258,831.
<F4>Represents mortgage notes payable.
<F5>Represents total deficit of the General Partners and Limited Partners of
($306,332)and ($4,471,680), respectively.
<F6>Includes all revenue of the Partnership.
<F7>Includes operating expenses of $1,436,205, real estate taxes of $361,497
and depreciation and amortization of $772,315.
<F8>Includes minority interest of ($2,206).
<F9>Net income allocated $2,482 to the General Partners and $245,689 to the
Limited Partners.  Average net income per Unit of Limited Partners interest
is $7.86 on 30,000 Units outstanding.
</FN>


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RONALD B. KILLETTE; NORTH STATE 

MUSIC; RONALD B. KILLETTE, III;

SUN COAST MUSIC; KAREN FAITH

KILLETTE,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DRIVE-IN MUSIC COMPANY,  No. 01-1543

INCOPORATED,

Intervenor/PlaintiffAppellant,

and

E. WAYNE PITTMAN,

Defendant-Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CA-91-8)

Argued: April 4, 2002

Decided: April 29, 2002

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and WILLIAMS

and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
COUNSEL

ARGUED: R. Jeffrey Kelleher, LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN

HYMAN, North Hollywood, California, for Appellant. Ira George

Greenberg, EDWARDS & ANGELL, L.L.P., New York, New York,

for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Allen Hyman, LAW OFFICES OF

ALLEN HYMAN, North Hollywood, California, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Drive-In Music Company, Inc. appeals from the district court’s

award of attorneys’ fees to E. Wayne Pittman pursuant to 17 U.S.C.A.

§ 505 (West 1996), the Copyright Act’s fee-shifting provision. The

district court awarded Pittman a total of $277,980 in attorneys’ fees.*

Drive-In contends that the district court erred in various respects in

determining the amount of the fee award. Having had the benefit of

oral argument and having carefully considered the parties’ briefs, the

record, and the relevant legal authority, we conclude that the district

court correctly resolved the issues before it. See Drive-In Music Co.

v. Killette, No. 3:91-0008 (D.S.C. Mar. 19, 2001) (order granting

attorneys’ fees for work performed by Pittman’s lead counsel); DriveIn Music Co. v. Killette, No. 3:91-0008 (D.S.C. Mar. 19, 2001) (order

*The facts of the underlying litigation are reproduced in this court’s

prior opinions in this case. See Drive-In Music Co. v. Killette, Nos. 98-

2666, 98-2724, 2000 WL 432365 (4th Cir. April 20, 2000) (unpublished)

(affirming the district court’s disposition of the merits and holding that

the district court possessed discretion to grant Pittman an award of attorneys’ fees); Killette v. Pittman, No. 96-1827, 1997 WL 657005 (4th Cir.

October 22, 1997) (unpublished) (holding that settlement agreement

between two of the parties was binding and reversing a judgment against

Pittman on a slander-of-title claim). 

2 KILLETTE v. DRIVE-IN MUSIC CO.
granting attorneys’ fees for work performed by Pittman’s local counsel). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

AFFIRMED

KILLETTE v. DRIVE-IN MUSIC CO. 3
조리 식품을 7일 이상 두면 고객이 식중독에

걸릴 수 있습니다!

어디서든 고객의 안전에 유의하십시오.

냉장 보관용 조리 식품을 7일 이내에

제공하거나 그렇지 못하면 폐기하십시오!

Copyright © International Association for Food Protection

일간 41°F(5°C)
Keeping prepared foods longer than

7 days can make your customers sick!

Protect People Everywhere.

Serve or discard refrigerated,

prepared food within 7 days!

Copyright © International Association for Food Protection

Days at 41oF (5oC)
Tom FRANKLIN, petitioner, v. CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS, et al.

No. 12-9535.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Texas denied.
Amendment to the Offer Letter to Daniel Harrington



 Exhibit 10.6 
 December 22, 2008 
 Daniel Harrington 
 Teradata
Corporation 
 Dear Dan: 
 This letter amends the letter
agreement between you and Teradata Corporation (“Teradata”) dated September 20, 2007 (the “Agreement”) and shall be effective as of December 31, 2008. As we have discussed, the amendment set forth below is necessary in
order for the Agreement to comply with the new tax rules imposed under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). 
  

	1.	The section of the Agreement entitled “Arbitration” is amended by adding the following at the end of the sixth sentence thereof:


 “at any time from the Start Date through your remaining lifetime (or, if longer, through the 20th anniversary of the
Start Date). To the extent that the reimbursement for reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses and arbitration expenses is considered “deferred compensation” within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code, then the reimbursement
must be paid as soon as reasonably practicable after, but in any event not later than the end of the calendar year in which, you are declared the prevailing party. The amount of such attorneys’ fees and expenses and arbitration expenses that
Teradata is obligated to pay in any given calendar year shall not affect the attorneys’ fees and expenses and arbitration expenses that Teradata is obligated to pay in any other calendar year, and your right to have Teradata pay such
attorneys’ fees and expenses and arbitration expenses may not be liquidated or exchanged for any other benefit.” 
  

	2.	Except as explicitly set forth herein, the Agreement will remain in full force and effect. 

 Please indicate your acceptance of the amendment to the Agreement by signing below and returning a copy to me. 
  

									
	Sincerely,	 		 		 	
				
	TERADATA CORPORATION	 		 		 	
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Molly A. Treese
	 		 		 	
		 	Molly A. Treese	 		 		 	
		 	Chief Corporate & Governance Counsel and Assistant Secretary	 		 	
				
	Agreed and Accepted:	 		 		 	
				
	 /s/ Daniel Harrington
	 		 	 1/16/09
	 	
	Daniel Harrington	 		 	Date
ORDER – No. 17-cv-00755-CW (LB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00755-CW (LB)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO QUASH THIRD-PARTY

SUBPOENAS

Re: ECF No. 107

Judge Wilken referred all discovery matters in this action to the undersigned.1

As the undersigned advised when discovery was first referred back in 2017,

2

the parties must 

comply with the undersigned’s standing order with respect to discovery disputes. The dispute 

procedures in it require, among other things, that if a meet-and-confer by other means does not 

resolve the parties’ dispute, lead counsel for the parties must meet and confer in person (if counsel 

are local) and then submit a joint letter brief with information about any unresolved disputes. The 

letter brief must be filed under the Civil Events category of “Motions and Related Filings > 

Motions – General > Discovery Letter Brief” and must conform to the requirements set out in the 

 

1 Order of Reference – ECF No. 49. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); 

pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2 Order – ECF No. 54 at 1.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 108 Filed 04/29/19 Page 1 of 2
ORDER – No. 17-cv-00755-CW (LB) 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

standing order. After reviewing the joint letter brief, the court will evaluate whether further 

proceedings are necessary, including any further briefing or argument.

The court denies without prejudice defendant Libre by Nexus, Inc.’s motion to quash the 

plaintiffs’ third-party subpoenas in lieu of this meet-and-confer and joint-letter-brief process.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2019

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

3 Should the third parties have objections to the subpoenas, they should also engage in this meet-andconfer and joint-letter-brief process in lieu of a motion to quash.

Case 4:17-cv-00755-CW Document 108 Filed 04/29/19 Page 2 of 2
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 115 

Providing for a joint session of the Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 

on Thursday, July 2, 2026, in honor of the semiquincentennial of the 

Declaration of Independence. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2024 

Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. EVANS, Ms. 

SALAZAR, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Ms. SCANLON, and Mr. THOMPSON

of Pennsylvania) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a joint session of the Congress in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, on Thursday, July 2, 2026, in honor of 

the semiquincentennial of the Declaration of Independence. 

Whereas the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was founded 

in 1682; 

Whereas Philadelphia has become known as the Nation’s 

birthplace for the critical role it played in the founding 

of the United States of America; 

Whereas Philadelphia was the meeting place for the first 

Continental Congress, the second Continental Congress, 

and the Constitutional Convention; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 115 IH 

Whereas Philadelphia served as the capital of the United 

States from 1790–1800; 

Whereas, on July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress 

approved the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia, at the Pennsylvania State House, now known as 

Independence Hall; 

Whereas the Declaration of Independence officially severed 

the 13 colonies’ ties to the British Crown; 

Whereas Independence Hall is 1 of only 11 cultural World 

Heritage sites in the United States of America; 

Whereas Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, became the first World 

Heritage City in the United States of America; 

Whereas shortly after the conclusion of the Constitutional 

Convention, Benjamin Franklin proclaimed of the Rising 

Sun Armchair at Independence Hall, ‘‘I have often looked 

at that picture behind the president without being able 

to tell whether it was rising or setting. But now at length 

I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not 

a setting sun’’; 

Whereas across from Independence Hall stands the Liberty 

Bell, displaying the phrase ‘‘Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants thereof’’; and 

Whereas, July 4, 2026, will serve as the semiquincentennial, 

or 250th anniversary, of the founding of the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That, in honor of the semiquincentennial of 

3 the Declaration of Independence, the two Houses of the 

4 Congress shall assemble in a joint session at the IndependVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:38 Jun 26, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HC115.IH HC115

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HCON 115 IH 

1 ence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsyl2 vania, on Thursday, July 2, 2026, for the purpose of com3 memorating the Declaration of Independence. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Robert CARABALLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-706

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 26, 2019

Steven J. Parton, of Mandell Law, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm Appellant's judgment and sentence in all respects except as to the conviction on count thirty, one of fifty-one convictions for intentional viewing of materials depicting a sexual performance by a child in violation of section 827.071(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2017). Even when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, *see**Robinson v. State*, 267 So.3d 567, 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), the material did not meet the statutory definition of sexual performance. *See* § 827.071(1)(h)-(i), Fla. Stat. (2017). Thus, the trial court erred in refusing to grant a judgment of acquittal as to this count. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to vacate the adjudication of guilt and sentence as to count thirty only.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, COHEN, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Ron Hooper, certifythat: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sabine Royalty Trust,for which Bank of America, N.A. acts as Trustee; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), or for causing such controls and proceduresto be established and maintained, for the registrant and I have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal controlover financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my 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 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring 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 controlover financial reporting; and 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors: 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation 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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 4, 2013
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1335 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1335

    To amend title 5, United States Code, to increase the mandatory 
retirement age for members of the Capitol Police from 57 to 60 years of 
                                  age.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2005

  Mr. Burton of Indiana (for himself and Mr. Ramstad) introduced the 
     following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, 
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of 
                        the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 5, United States Code, to increase the mandatory 
retirement age for members of the Capitol Police from 57 to 60 years of 
                                  age.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE.

    (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--Section 8335(c) of title 5, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence by striking ``57'' and inserting 
        ``60''; and
            (2) in the second sentence by striking ``60'' and inserting 
        ``65''.
    (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--Section 8425(c) of title 
5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in the first sentence by striking ``57'' and inserting 
        ``60''; and
            (2) in the second sentence by striking ``60'' and inserting 
        ``65''.
                                 <all>
```
Suplemento

dietético

Suplemento

dietético

Suplemento

dietético

Suplemento

dietético

Suplemento

dietético

Suplemento

dietético

Suplemento

dietético Suplementodietético

Suplemento

dietético

Suplemento

dietético

La FDA regula

A pesar de que la FDA no 

aprueba los suplementos 

dietéticos, existen requisitos 

de fabricación y etiquetado de 

productos que las empresas de 

suplementos deben cumplir.

La FDA toma medidas

Cuando se descubre que un producto no es seguro o que 

no cumple con los requisitos de la FDA, la FDA puede:

• Colaborar con la empresa para que el producto 

cumpla con las normas.

• Pedirle a la empresa que retire voluntariamente 

el producto.

• Tomar medidas para retirar un producto peligroso 

del mercado.

La ley

La Ley de Educación y Salud sobre Suplementos Dietéticos (DSHEA) de 

1994 definió los suplementos dietéticos y estableció la autoridad de la 

Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA) con respecto a estos 

productos. De conformidad con la DSHEA:

• La FDA no tiene la autoridad para aprobar los suplementos 

dietéticos en cuanto a seguridad y eficacia ni su etiquetado antes 

de que se vendan en tiendas o en línea.

• Las empresas de suplementos dietéticos son responsables de 

garantizar que sus productos sean seguros y que las descripciones 

de la etiqueta sean veraces y corroboradas.

• Las empresas de suplementos dietéticos pueden introducir nuevos 

suplementos dietéticos en el mercado sin recibir la aprobación de 

la FDA. De hecho, a menudo pueden introducir suplementos 

dietéticos en el mercado sin siquiera notificar a la FDA.

 Mayo de 2022

Suplementos dietéticos: 

Cómo la FDA le protege

DSHEA

Suplemento

dietético

Suplemento

dietético

Inspeccionar periódicamente las 

instalaciones de fabricación de 

suplementos dietéticos para verificar 

que las empresas cumplan con todos los 

requisitos de fabricación y etiquetado.

Supervisar los informes de eventos 

adversos y las quejas recibidas de la 

industria, los profesionales de la salud 

y los consumidores.

La FDA supervisa el mercado de suplementos 

dietéticos al:

Más información en www.fda.gov/dietarysupplements.
Case 3:14-cv-01177-EMC Document 23 Filed 03/21/14 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:14-cv-01177-EMC Document 23 Filed 03/21/14 Page 2 of 8
Case 3:14-cv-01177-EMC Document 23 Filed 03/21/14 Page 3 of 8
Case 3:14-cv-01177-EMC Document 23 Filed 03/21/14 Page 4 of 8
Case 3:14-cv-01177-EMC Document 23 Filed 03/21/14 Page 5 of 8
Case 3:14-cv-01177-EMC Document 23 Filed 03/21/14 Page 6 of 8
Case 3:14-cv-01177-EMC Document 23 Filed 03/21/14 Page 7 of 8
Case 3:14-cv-01177-EMC Document 23 Filed 03/21/14 Page 8 of 8
Nancy SEAMAN, petitioner, v. Heidi WASHINGTON, Warden.

No. 12-8809.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32
 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 of Sabine Royalty Trust
(the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, not in its individual
capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its
knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934, as amended; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Trust.  BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FORSABINE ROYALTY TRUST  By:
    /s/ Ron E. Hooper Ron E. HooperSenior Vice President, Royalty Management Date: November 7, 2008 A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust and
will be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.