alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
!"##       !    ! $#"%!&!'''(  $)*+,    #!-!! # 	
    !" +# .  !  /#  !##%01 0 ## !     !   % !   $#" (	(+22'$*$#" +22'$* !" 7KH +RQRUDEOH .DUO 6 )RUHVWHU 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 'LVWULFW -XGJH IRU WKH(DVWHUQ 'LVWULFW RI .HQWXFN\ VLWWLQJ E\ GHVLJQDWLRQ5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//7(;7 38%/,&$7,213XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUFXLW 5XOH (/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )(' $SS 3 WK &LU)LOH 1DPH DS	

		23$14)5'6147'$78'19999999999999999981,7('57$7(6 2)+0(5,&$	

	:2+1+ $$3$126		!""#$!

;

+##8 5,7!),*<070.	

	.=>?@A7,:! +! -3%	
,   2 -,%<-*+$1'7:! 3$$'57!:! 23$)51)$,:! 	

		

99999999999999999  1 B ( <  4*  +##  : : ?  8'1),51+1)5 +113$)C , *  +## 
  1 B ( <  4*  +##  : : ?  8'1),51+1)5+113$)C,*+##<3C7)2*+$1':$7:! :+$### !"       ..857D.EF18 5##$#"0"#% G

 2+22'$* $#"+22'$*     $)*+,  #!'1 %07!	

		2. .HEH7F  % 3##$#      &!0 !#! ! !0 $### !" (    !  

	

		 %*,#!$! )?+0#   # ##   !   # I!      #%  !##2! +##   70D .) E
F   ###     I!##%0 $#5#0%!$##!%! ###%0! ! !0   #  #%0 !J1I!0 !  %%! %0##        #  #%0    K%	&

2	 $#/###%0   !<!A#$#J0 L M #  #%0K  !"    #  #%0 !! 73 ##   !  $#!  %!&!! D.7! 3!   !"##D.7	
'( 	H2. 
.	EH7F( ##0 # -F   !"     !   0 !  	F%!/ I!   !" !%!&! .F%!&!! !%## ).
(  !"   <! !H	

		

#!! JL,M%#    !N  %0  !    ### %    !   ##%!  K  (       #!! +##
 !"  #!%! <1  !    $#  ##%0 #!!/#D.)! +##	70-J'  !  00 #  #%0     ! !/!10!/#   #! !!K1  ! &!      -J+!, #!O%!   #      %!    !! %!  I! ##%0! !K+ !"       ##%0!  !%!0!	
%	&2	 HEH7F($#  #0##%0! !+##	J'  !       # #%0%% #0!##  !K$#"   ! %  0    J0LM# #%0K2/#$# !!! 00      ##0   

	

		.''1  ## $#"   ! -F !##0 $#   #!	F !##0   $#    #  #%0   .F    ! $#"%!&!(!  ! $#   #! ##%01 !       $#"  %!&!+1 ! $# #! !  D 	P.E%FEFE+F   85 5O!  *! E
F    J !!# #!   K  1  !     #!! D	P.E%FE
F J!##K1 !%0   #!       #   #!! #L1M!    !#!!!'   #!  I!       ###0 %0  ##0 %0 '0/ # !#  !  &!        0###0	

		

' 7! A'"A0!"#(    !"  # 5O! %! *	85EHF+ 857D..E%FE	


F!! ##% %0! J!! /!A   I!0A %057!! ! !  % K+  ! %!     A ! 0  %07! *85 '  !  !!  J!A!! " K)H17 J!%0I!K855O! *!#+#HE
F'# !#%0 !   #! I!0 %07! 1! #  0##!%0 !  5	P	 N !/!% #  # %    D 	P.    J #!K   !   $#  < !" #!  !#! A    1  !      #! !  +##  
 #     #!   JL M# !#!  I!0   !   !%  #! !       A    K1 !"  

	

		#!+## #! JL M# !#! I!0 !%   A    K  1  !"  %!0##!   A !       #  !       ! ##  %    #!1 !#   0!  0   !   J K /N !# ' !"   #! % #0!    !  #   ! ! $#! &-' "A"&! ' &!   #       !   * ONN   # #8 54#4"N7!%+N4# 5#85       #   A#!#+ +N%!0 #00   /0#"!0N0' "A+ ' + !        ####0! #%       #!  #    %0  !   170  D Q	
    !
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             5
<MULTIPLIER>          1

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                        49,697
<SECURITIES>                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              49,697
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                49,697
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         82,479
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      85,045
<OTHER-SE>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILTY-AND-EQUITY>   167,524
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              54,126
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               0
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (54,126)
<EPS-BASIC>                 (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.00)


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. GT01-15-002]

Take notice that on June 6, 2001, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised volume No. 1, and First Revised volume No. 2, certain revised tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, proposed to be effective on April 16, 2001, and May 1, 2001.

Texas Eastern states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect the restatement of certain tariff sheets that were accepted by the Commission in orders issued subsequent to Texas Eastern's filing of its corporate name change on April 12, 2001, which was approved by the Commission's letter order dated May 10, 2001, in Docket No. GT01-15-000 et al.

Texas Eastern states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all affected customers and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at 

http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​ doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-15238  Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Tammy BERDEAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Susan MANNING, Instructor for the University of Wisconsin-Stout in her official and individual capacity; Nathan Kirkman, Judicial Officer for University of Wisconsin-Stout in his official and individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-15533.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 6, 2010.

Tammy Berdeaux, Phoenix, AZ, pro se.

Richard Briles Moriarty, Assistant Attorney General, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, WI, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Tammy Berdeaux appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of jurisdiction her action arising from her participation in a Masters in Education program through the University of Wisconsin-Stout. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy,*453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Berdeaux failed to establish that the court had personal jurisdiction over defendants. *See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,*374 F.3d 797, 800, 802-03 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that “the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction is appropriate,” and setting forth test for specific personal jurisdiction).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Erick Alexander CRUZ-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70529.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 2010.*

Filed June 10, 2010.

Erick Alexander Cruz-Santos, South Gate, CA, pro se.

OIL, James A. Hurley, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Erick Alexander Cruz-Santos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s order denying his *614motion to reopen removal proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Reyes v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 592, 595 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency acted within its discretion in determining that Cruz-Santos did not establish an exceptional circumstance to warrant reopening because he failed to comply with the requirements set forth in *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. *&*N. Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), where he did not file a state bar complaint or include sufficient evidence that he had informed the attorney of the allegations against him, and the ineffective assistance is not plain on the face of the record. *See Reyes,*358 F.3d at 597-99.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.8

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Year
Ended December 31, 2002 by ENGlobal Corporation, each of the undersigned hereby
certifies that:

     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 Registrant.

                                          /s/ Michael L. Burrow
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Michael L. Burrow
                                        Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

                                           /s/ Robert W. Raiford
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Robert W. Raiford
                                        Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
No. 631.

#### Railway Engineering Equipment Co. et al. *v.*Oregon Short Line R. Co.

January 6, 1936.

*Messrs. Wallace R. Lane, Hervey S. Knight,*and *Ralph M. Snyder*for petitioners.

*Mr. L. B. Mann*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 21.1
                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant
                         ------------------------------

Katz Media Corporation
Domicile:      Delaware

Katz Media Services, Inc.
Domicile:      Delaware

Katz Communications, Inc.
Domicile:      Delaware

Banner Radio Sales, Inc.
Domicile:      Delaware

Christal Radio Sales, Inc.
Domicile:      Delaware

Eastman Radio Sales, Inc.
Domicile:      Delaware

Seltel Inc.
Domicile:      Delaware

Katz Millennium Marketing Inc.
Domicile:      Delaware

Katz Cable Corporation
Domicile:      Delaware

The National Payroll Company, Inc.
Domicile:      Delaware

The Cable Company, Inc. (dormant)
Domicile:      Delaware

Katz International Limited
Domicile:      England

Katz Television Sales Limited
Domicile:      England

Katz Radio Sales Limited
Domicile:      England
No. 639, Misc.

#### Fuller *v.*Michigan.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1537 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 221
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1537

                          [Report No. 111-552]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
 Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 20, 2010

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
 Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported through the legislative day of July 23, 2010, 
providing for consideration or disposition of a measure addressing 
unemployment compensation.
    Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the legislative 
day of July 23, 2010, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the 
House suspend the rules. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with 
the Minority Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter 
for consideration pursuant to this section.
                                                 House Calendar No. 221

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1537

                          [Report No. 111-552]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
 Rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 20, 2010

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Rate Commission

# AGENCY:

Postal Rate Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice of commission visit.

# SUMMARY:

Postal Rate Commission members and staff will tour the Martinsburg, WV, printing facility of Quebecor World Inc. on Monday, June 18, 2001.

# DATES:

The tour is scheduled for Monday, June 18, 2001, beginning at 11 a.m.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, Postal Rate Commission, Suite 300, 1333 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20268-0001, 202-789-6820.

      ( print page 32852)    
Dated: June 13, 2001.

Steven W. Williams,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-15318  Filed 6-15-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-M
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Songer v. Stokes et al.

November 14, 1990

Case No. (Law) 99563

By Judge Michael P. McWeeny

This case originally came before the Court upon defendants Mat-tick and Albanese and Mattick, P.C., filing of a Demurrer. In lieu of oral arguments, briefs were to be filed.

The Court has now received the briefs and considered the arguments. A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts that are properly pleaded and accepts all reasonable inferences therefrom. *Lyons*v. *Grether,*218 Va. 630, 631 (1977). On the face of the pleadings, a reasonable inference may be drawn as to an alleged contractual relationship. The Demurrer to Count I is overruled.

As to Count II, however, the demurrer is sustained for failure to plead fraud with specificity. *See, Winn v. Aleda Construction Co., Inc.,*227 Va. 304 (1984); *Tuscarora, Inc. v. B.V.A. Credit Corp.,*218 Va. 849 (1978). There is no factual allegation as to what fraudulent act or statement was performed or made by these defendants.

In addition, the claim for punitive damages fails at the current state of pleading. Once the demurer is sustained as to Count II, there is no factual basis for an award of said damages as the pleading fails to set forth a “willful and independent tort” in the remaining contract action. *Kamlar Corp.*v. *Haley,*224 Va. 699 (1983).

Lastly, the demurrer is sustained for misjoinder. Section 8.01-272 changes the common law rule so long as the claims arise out of the same transaction and against the same group of defendants. *Fox*v. *Deese,*234 Va. 412 (1987). Here, the plaintiff has improperly joined a defendant under Count IV which has no relation to the other three counts.

*535The plaintiff is granted twenty-one days to amend.
## NO. 12

- 21

- 00086

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RUSK STATE HOSPITAL , TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION AND KERRI TAYLOR , APPELLANT S

V.

DAVID MCGOWAN , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 2ND

JU DICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Appellant s , Rusk State Hospital, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, and
Kerri Taylor , and Appellee, David McGowan

, filed a stipulation to dismiss this appeal

. The

part ie s ask that this Court set aside the trial court ’ s order s granting McGowan ’ s Ru le 202 petition
and denying Appella nts ’ plea to the jurisdiction , and remand the case to the trial court to dismiss

McGowan ’ s Rule 202 petition

. Texas Rule of Appellate Proce du re 42.1 sets forth t he actions that this Cou rt may take i n
accordance with an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed with the clerk

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a) (2). This i ncludes set ting aside the trial co urt’ s judgment without r egard

t o the merits and remand ing the case to the trial court for rendition of judgme nt in accordance
with the agreement

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 2.1(a)( 2 ) (B)

. Accordingl y, w e grant the agreed motion to dismiss. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)( 2 ) (A)

. We render judgm en t setting aside the trial court’s May 14, 2021 order granting McGowan ’ s
Rule 2 02 petition and its May 24, 2021 or der denying Appellants ’ plea to the jurisdiction,
without regard to the merits. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)( 2 ) (B)

. We remand the case to t he t rial
court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreeme nt. See id

.Opinion delivered November 17, 2021. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWE LF TH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 17 , 2 021

NO. 12

- 21

- 00086

- CV

RUSK STATE HOSPITAL, TEXAS H EALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION AND KERRI TAYLOR , Appellant s V. DAVID MCGOWAN , Appellee

Appeal from the 2nd District Court

of Che ro kee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2021

- 040098 )

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the agreed motion of the Appellant s and App ellee to dismiss, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED
and DECREED by this Court that the motion be granted ; j ud gment is rendered setting aside the

trial c ourt’s May 14, 20 21 order granting Appellee ’ s Rule 202 petition and its May 24, 2021
order denying Appellants ’ plea to the jurisdiction, without regard to the merits ; the cause is

remanded to the trial court for r endition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreeme nt , and that the decision be certified to the court below f or observance.
By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
KINDRED NURSING CENTERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, dba Winchester Centre for Health and Rehabilitation, nka Fountain Circle Health and Rehabilitation, et al., petitioners, v. Janis E. CLARK, et al.

No. 16-32.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kentucky granted.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 21
                                                                     ----------




                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
                            AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999



1.    Just Like Home, Inc., a Florida corporation

2.    Just Like Family, Inc., a Florida corporation

3.    Just Like Home IV, Inc., a Florida corporation (Inactive)

4.    Project Market Decisions, Inc., a Nevada corporation

5.    Just Like Home Corporate Center, Inc., a Florida corporation

6.    JLH Series I, Inc., a Florida corporation

7.    JLH Management Corp., a Florida corporation

8.    JLH Franchising Corp., a Florida corporation

9.    Edgewood Double Drive, Inc., a Florida corporation

10.   JLH Realty, Inc., an Ohio corporation

11.   Charis Place, Inc., a Florida corporation
Mark LE SCHACK, petitioner, v. Catherine LE SCHACK.

No. 16-6470.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Office denied.
Chris Ann JAYE, petitioner, v. OAK KNOLL VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.

No. 16-451.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

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