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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
(THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ICG COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AS OF AND FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS)
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001001131
<NAME> ICG HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         359,934
<SECURITIES>                                    32,601
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,139
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,515
<INVENTORY>                                      2,845
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               449,223
<PP&E>                                         460,477
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 944,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,622
<BONDS>                                        761,504
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    159,120
<COMMON>                                       278,686
<OTHER-SE>                                   (344,766)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   944,133
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,956
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   914
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,454
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (49,823)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (49,823)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (49,823)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 144 (Friday, July 30, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40918-40919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16329]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Chapter I

[CIS No. 2617-18; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2018-0001]
RIN 1615-AC19


Ratification of Department Actions

AGENCY: Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Ratification.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security is publishing notification 
of the Secretary of Homeland Security's ratification of a rule.

DATES: The ratification was signed on May 4, 2021 and relates back to 
the original date of each action that it ratifies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leo (Chip) Boucher, Assistant General 
Counsel, Administrative Law, Office of the General Counsel, Department 
of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, (202) 282-9822.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 4, 2021, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security ratified a final rule entitled, Removal of 30-Day Processing 
Provision for Asylum Applicant-Related Form I-765 Employment 
Authorization Applications, as well as the associated notice of 
proposed rulemaking. See 85 FR 37502 (June 22, 2020); 84 FR 47148 
(Sept. 9, 2019). The Department is now publishing the ratification in 
the Federal Register out of an abundance of caution. Neither the 
ratification nor the publication is a statement that the ratified 
action would be invalid absent the ratification, whether published or 
otherwise.

    Signed:
Adam Hunter,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Immigration Policy, U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30AU21.000


[[Page 40919]]


[FR Doc. 2021-16329 Filed 7-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9112-FP-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00394-CR

NO. 03-10-00395-CR

Steven Paul Wilson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEE COUNTY, 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. 7004 & 7036, HONORABLE REVA TOWSLEE CORBETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Steven Paul Wilson pleaded guilty and judicially confessed to committing

aggravated assault against a public servant (cause number 7004) and driving while intoxicated,

third offense (cause number 7036). See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2010),

§ 49.04 (West 2003), § 49.09 (West Supp. 2010). There were plea bargains in both cases. In

number 7004, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision. 

In number 7036, the court adjudged appellant guilty and assessed punishment at five years in prison,

but suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on community supervision.

The State subsequently filed motions to adjudicate and to revoke probation. At a

hearing on the motions, appellant pleaded true to the alleged violations of the conditions of

supervision. The court adjudged appellant guilty in cause number 7004 and sentenced him to
forty-five years in prison. The court revoked supervision in cause number 7036 and imposed the

five-year sentence previously assessed.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a

brief concluding that the appeals are frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements

of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State,

516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s

brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. A pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Garner v. State,

300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. The issues raised in appellant’s

pro se brief have no arguable merit on the present record. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 767; Bledsoe,

1

178 S.W.3d at 827. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim rests in part on assertions of fact that are 1

outside the appellate record. 

2
The judgment of conviction in cause number 7004 and the orderrevoking community

supervision in cause number 7036 are affirmed.

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Henson and Goodwin

Affirmed

Filed: February 3, 2011

Do Not Publish

3
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 90 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                   House Calendar No. 6
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 90

                          [Report No. 105-18]

 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 89) requesting 
   the President to submit a budget for fiscal year 1998 that would 
   balance the Federal budget by fiscal year 2002 without relying on 
                        budgetary contingencies.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 1997

   Mr. Solomon, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 89) requesting 
   the President to submit a budget for fiscal year 1998 that would 
   balance the Federal budget by fiscal year 2002 without relying on 
                        budgetary contingencies.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 89) requesting 
the President to submit a budget for fiscal year 1998 that would 
balance the Federal budget by fiscal year 2002 without relying on 
budgetary contingencies. The resolution shall be considered as read for 
amendment. The resolution shall be debatable for two hours equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on the Budget or their designees. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption 
without intervening motion except on motion to recommit. The motion to 
recommit may include instructions only if offered by the minority 
leader or a designee. If including instructions, the motion to recommit 
shall be debatable for five minutes by its proponent and five minutes 
by an opponent.
                                     





                                                   House Calendar No. 6

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. RES. 90

                          [Report No. 105-18]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 89) requesting 
   the President to submit a budget for fiscal year 1998 that would 
   balance the Federal budget by fiscal year 2002 without relying on 
                        budgetary contingencies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 11, 1997

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
OFFICE OF THE A?TORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUBTIN

Itonarrblo ?. L. &rrlo oountlAudlter irllb4ag.r

cmulty vo~aal, Teur
nou a1rt apinionHo. O-3931

u4 have r444iveaJolm nitten nQu4rt ror 4n opinion f?om thlr depwtutnt. we quot. frar pmr requwtt

%n Augttrt

28th,Wllbmger County; hxae, h4ld 4n Electton (County WI4 for th4 purpor4 of rotlttg

on the lmu8xw4 or i25*000.00 ia made. for the par9084 or bt@Jlg 8 rite ior an Air ?ort 4lte, th4 **beat&** aot to ku RON thaa J$ intueat, and to be due la 20 744rr vitlt 8a **optian** of pqllt# of? **tit8** remlang **balance** 

## rt the ualntlon of the 10th year. 

### "Under ArtloleHo. 2938Rerlred Cfrll 8tatuter,411 &@4r u4 Clork4 4lull b4 94ld 42.00 9.r d8J 8ad $2.00 4xtm to the tnrlalng Judge for vklng the nturmn of the X144tiont ?inderArtlo lo. 2*3 Berlred Girl1 pt4tuter, it provide6 that tin -48 aad ale*4 of 8 tseneral or 894et41El4otioa ah8l.l be **mid** 

### 43.00 a d8~l 4eh rad .30 aeat 94r hour for say tlm tn 4xe48e oi 8 da- vork, oolulttlagof 10 hourr. 'I@ rueh 8n 414ation 4B 4bwo aentloaed 4 894414ltl4etic3n

under the atrtuts,utd vb8tRaMwuo ?. t. LUlO, ?ap 2< 

### 14aowbl. 1. L. Lwlo, 

### ?a#. 3

u-aawof m eplrio8tlmtm 4i?pmtbmd4A44t14& mfem(l to iD~osmreqwrt, la 8 aveoirl ebotia. ko Oplnlea Ho. 043P3, l 00 3 of rfr1.h IN ulead ul the uthorltl*~ 4lt4d t&wm 19 0. .%. nU.0 rorhu*lwUoai* l 8podal l 104tia it foUa4 mt th4 jldg4 4mI l &e4 t&at h4l4 th4 4144t1a, bqllnd about, 8houlAk -ted la l oooa an44 

### tithArtio104*s, mgm, ulutinuro~evith tb l

### o&. pouatloa pwvi8d %a hrti4l4 2938, l pw. uetn8ttbt lnthi8m8n4~w4h4urmumnd44ah of yew iaqulriea. Youw ruy trull

FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENEHAL ha8iotut
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MARK ANTONIO BURGOS, ) DOC #T72747, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. 2D16-728 STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed December 14, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Chet A. Tharpe, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Cynthia J. Dodge, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan D. Dunlevy, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa (substituted as counsel of record), for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
#### In the Matter of Rainelle Cromwell, Appellant, v Charles W. Bates, as Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the County of Westchester, Respondent.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination dated December 3, 1984, which dismissed the petitioner from her position as a senior examiner with the Westchester County Department of Social Services, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Meehan, J.), dated April 18, 1985, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

In a prior proceeding to review a determination dismissing the petitioner from her position as a senior examiner, we confirmed so much of a determination of the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services of the County of Westchester as found that she had committed a serious crime. Based upon our finding that a second charge against her was not supported by substantial evidence, we remitted to the respondent for reimposition of a penalty *(see, Matter of Cromwell v Bates,*105 AD2d 699). Upon remittitur, the commissioner again imposed the penalty of dismissal, nunc pro tunc, as of the date of the original determination. Petitioner contends that the nunc pro tunc dismissal was improper, and that she *668is entitled to back wages for the period between the original termination decision and the subsequent termination decision, relying on a line of cases beginning with *Matter of Amkraut v Hults*(21 AD2d 260, *affd*15 NY2d 627; *see also, Matter of Sinicropi v Bennett,*60 NY2d 918). The petitioner’s reliance is misplaced, as the cases cited represent an entitlement to back wages pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 (3) "[p]ending the hearing and determination of charges of * * * misconduct”. The petitioner was not entitled to a new hearing upon remittitur, as we confirmed in part the finding of misconduct based upon her conviction of a felony. Where a matter is remitted merely for a redetermination of a penalty, a petitioner would be entitled to a back pay award only in the event that a reduction in penalty ensued *(see, Matter of Phinn v Kross,*26 Misc 2d 889, *affd*15 AD2d 641; *cf. Matter of Amkraut v Hults,*21 AD2d 260, 262, *affd*15 NY2d 627, *supra*[distinguishing *Matter of Phinn v Kross, supra]).*

Having found the petitioner’s remaining contentions to be without merit, we affirm the dismissal of the proceeding *(see, Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222, 240; *Foley v Roche,*86 AD2d 887). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                               POWERS OF ATTORNEY


                  Each of the undersigned directors and officers of Oak Hill
Financial, Inc. (the "Corporation") whose signature appears below hereby
appoints John D. Kidd or H. Grant Stephenson, or either of them, as his
attorney-in-fact to sign, in his name and behalf and in any and all capacities
stated below, and to cause to be filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Annual Report")
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1999, and likewise to sign and file any
amendments, including post-effective amendments, to the Annual Report, hereby
granting unto such attorneys and each of them full power and authority to do and
perform in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, and in any and all such
capacities, every act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in and about the
premises as fully as the undersigned could or might do in person. Hereby
granting to such attorney-in-fact full power of substitution and revocation, and
hereby ratifying all that such attorney-in-fact or his substitute may do by
virtue hereof.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power
of Attorney in counterparts if necessary, effective as of March 29, 2000.


          SIGNATURE                           TITLE

     /s/ John D. Kidd              President, Chief Executive Officer, Director
     -----------------------       (Principal Executive Officer)
         John D. Kidd

     /s/ Evan E. Davis             Chairman of the Board
     -----------------------
         Evan E. Davis

     /s/ Richard P. LeGrand        Executive Vice President and Director
     -----------------------
         Richard P. LeGrand

     /s/ Tim Bichsel               Secretary and Treasurer
     -----------------------
         Tim Bichsel

     /s/ Ron J. Copher             Chief Financial Officer
     -----------------------
         Ron J. Copher

     /s/ Barry M. Dorsey           Director
     -----------------------
         Barry M. Dorsey

     /s/ Rick A. McNelly           Director
     -----------------------
         Rick A. McNelly

     /s/ Donald R. Seigneur        Director
     -----------------------
         Donald R. Seigneur

     /s/ H. Grant Stpehnson        Director
     -----------------------
         H. Grant Stephenson

     /s/ C. Clayton Johnson        Director
     -----------------------
         C. Clayton Johnson

     /s/ D. Bruce Knox             Director
     -----------------------
         D. Bruce Knox


                                      -70-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6416

BUSTER MARSHALL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOE MITCHELL; GENE ERVIN; JAMES A. MANN, in

their individual, professional and official

capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-96-26-6-3AK)

Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Buster Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. Appellant's case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1988). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised

Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to

object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.

AFFIRMED
Case: 1:02-cv-08678 Document #: 23 Filed: 02/25/03 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:161

Case: 1:02-cv-08678 Document #: 23 Filed: 02/25/03 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:162

Case: 1:02-cv-08678 Document #: 23 Filed: 02/25/03 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:163

Case: 1:02-cv-08678 Document #: 23 Filed: 02/25/03 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:164

Case: 1:02-cv-08678 Document #: 23 Filed: 02/25/03 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:165
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Miguel Rodriguez, Appellant.

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Haft, J.), rendered on September 28, 1983, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant for leave to file a supplemental brief denied. No opinion. Concur — Ross, J. P., Asch, Bloom, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiaries of**

**OYO Geospace Corporation**

Geospace Technologies, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

GeospaceTechnologies Corporation, a Delaware corporation 

Geospace Technologies Corporation Azerbaijan Branch, an Azerbaijan company 

Geospace Engineering Resources International, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

Geospace Finance Corp., a Texas corporation 

Concord Technologies, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

OYOG, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company 

OYOG Limited Partner, LLC, aNevada limited liability company 

OYOG Operations, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

OYO Geospace China, a Chinese company 

OYO Geo Space Canada, Inc., an Alberta corporation 

OYO Instruments, LP, a Texas limited partnership 

OYO Instruments EuropeLimited, a United Kingdom company 

OYO Geospace J.V., LP, a Texas limited partnership 

OYO-GEO Impulse International, LLC, a Russian limited liability company
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Lewis W. Scott, Deceased. Gwendolyn L. Scott, as Administratrix of the Estate of Lewis W. Scott, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant, v. City of Rochester, Appellant-Respondent

Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: The only issue raised or considered on appeal is that part of the Surrogate Court order which directs that any surplus derived from the sale of the property, after payments of taxes and charges, shall be held for the benefit of the estate pending further order of the Surrogate. There is no dispute as to the validity of the city’s tax foreclosure judgment. No appeal was taken from that judgment nor was there ever any motion made to vacate it. Thus, that judgment of the Supreme Court controlled the issues raised before the Surrogate. Since no answer or notice of interest had ever been served upon the city, the judgment conveyed to the City of Rochester title to the subject property in fee simple absolute and declared that all persons who may have had any interest in the property were forever foreclosed of all such interest (Rochester City Charter § 9-139). The proceedings instituted by the administratrix in Surrogate’s Court could have no effect on the prior judgment of foreclosure rendered in the Supreme Court.

A city may foreclose on tax delinquent property and retain it or the entire proceeds from its sale as long as adequate steps are taken to notify the owners of charges due and of foreclosure proceedings *(Nelson v City of New York,*352 US 103). The estate was given adequate notice and time in which *1021to respond but failed to submit a verified notice of interest as required by Rochester City Charter § 9-131. Thus, the court erred in directing that the proceeds of the sale are subject to the jurisdiction of the Surrogate’s Court. (Appeals from order of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Ciaccio, S.—foreclosure.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.