alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1914 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1914

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit cooperatives to 
 pay dividends on preferred stock without reducing patronage dividends.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 24, 1999

  Mr. Thomas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit cooperatives to 
 pay dividends on preferred stock without reducing patronage dividends.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF DIVIDENDS ON STOCK OF COOPERATIVES WITHOUT 
              REDUCING PATRONAGE DIVIDENDS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1388 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to patronage dividend defined) is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``For purposes of paragraph 
(3), net earnings shall not be reduced by amounts paid during the year 
as dividends on capital stock or other proprietary capital interests of 
the organization to the extent that the articles of incorporation or 
bylaws of such organization or other contract with patrons provide that 
such dividends are in addition to amounts otherwise payable to patrons 
which are derived from business done with or for patrons during the 
taxable year.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to distributions in taxable years beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1605 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 1605

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 4, 2000

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
  at 402 North Walnut Street in Harrison, Arkansas, as the ``J. Smith 
        Henley Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 402 
North Walnut Street in Harrison, Arkansas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``J. Smith Henley Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``J. Smith Henley Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 3, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11
                             TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
                            (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)
               STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,   SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                           ---------------------------   -------------------------
                                                              1996           1997           1996          1997
                                                          -----------    -----------   ------------   ------------
                                                                 (unaudited)                   (unaudited)

<S>                                                       <C>            <C>           <C>            <C>
Net income (loss)                                         $(2,685,447)   $ 4,217,077   $ (6,100,363)  $(8,941,489)

Deemed dividend upon conversion of preferred stock                  -              -     (5,431,871)            -
                                                          -----------    -----------   ------------   ------------
Net loss applicable to common stock                        (2,685,447)     4,217,077    (11,532,234)   (8,941,489)
                                                          -----------    -----------   ------------   ------------
                                                          -----------    -----------   ------------   ------------

Weighted average shares of
  common stock outstanding                                 10,757,940     13,046,102      9,791,050    12,971,902

Common stock equivalents                                            -        111,280              -             -

                                                          -----------    -----------   ------------   ------------
Shares used in computing net loss per share                10,757,940     13,157,382      9,791,050    12,971,902
                                                          -----------    -----------   ------------   ------------
                                                          -----------    -----------   ------------   ------------
Net income (loss) per share                               $     (0.25)   $      0.32   $      (1.18)  $     (0.69)
                                                          -----------    -----------   ------------   ------------
                                                          -----------    -----------   ------------   ------------
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                               ULTRATECH STEPPER, INC.

                                     EXHIBIT 11.1

               STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION ON NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE

Shares used in the net income per common share computation are the weighted
average number of common shares outstanding plus dilutive common share
equivalents.

Shares used in the per share computation are as follows:


                                        Three Months Ended    Nine Months Ended
                                        ------------------    ------------------
                                        Sept. 30  Sept. 30    Sept. 30  Sept. 30
(in thousands, except per share amounts)  1997      1996        1997      1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
Weighted average common shares                                          
  outstanding                            20,654     20,198      20,555    20,088
                                                                        
Common share equilavents from stock                                     
  options granted (using the treasury                                   
  stock method)                           1,225      1,006       1,138     1,223
                                        -------    -------      ------    ------
                                                                        
Number of shares used in per share                                      
 calculation                             21,879     21,204      21,693    21,311
                                        -------    -------      ------    ------
                                        -------    -------      ------    ------
                                                                        
Net income                               $5,405     $8,835     $15,665   $26,752
                                        -------    -------      ------    ------
                                        -------    -------      ------    ------
                                                                        
Net income per share                      $0.25      $0.42       $0.72     $1.26
                                        -------    -------      ------    ------
                                        -------    -------      ------    ------



                                          22
In the Matter of DISCIPLINE OF Martin Barnett REINER.

No. D-3030.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Martin Barnett Reiner, of Beverly Hills, California, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

MARVIN EUGENE GATES §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv130

CHRISTOPHER L. NORSWORTHY §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Marvin Eugene Gates, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit. The Court referred

this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge

has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the

case be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States 

Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Proper notice was given to plaintiff at his

last known address. See FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2). No objections were filed to the Report and

Recommendation.

ORDER

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct

and the report of the Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 24] is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. A final

judgment shall be entered dismissing this lawsuit. The dismissal of this action is based on plaintiff’s

failure to comply with an order directing him to provide additional information concerning his

claims. If plaintiff wishes to have this case reinstated on the court’s active docket, he may do so by

complying with the prior order within 30 days of the date set forth below.

 

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 17th day of June, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00130-MJT-ZJH Document 30 Filed 06/17/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 67
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF AVIVA PETROLEUM INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,839
<ALLOWANCES>                                       328
<INVENTORY>                                        794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,684
<PP&E>                                          69,121
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,586
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,345
<OTHER-SE>                                     (14,238)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,563
<SALES>                                          2,759
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,759
<CGS>                                            2,399
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (92)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 574
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (686)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (813)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (813)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)


</TABLE>
Herman GAINES, petitioner, v. Brad BUSNARDO, et al.

No. 18-8552.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Nicholas HONCHARIW, petitioner, v. COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, CALIFORNIA, et al.

No. 18-294.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 28, 2019.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of *Knick v. Township of Scott,* 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2162, --- L.E.2d ---- (2019).
Oliver DOUCE AL-DEY, petitioner, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK.

No. 18-8787.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York denied.
Shelley SONIAT, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al.

No. 17-8916.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Eric Thorton VON HALL, petitioner, v. Brad CAIN, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution.

No. 18-9188.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Gregory BARTUNEK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5617.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
James Edward WHITNEY, petitioner, v. Antonio GUTERRES, Secretary-General of the United Nations, et al.

No. 18-5891.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 13, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas denied.
Glenn S. SOLBERG, petitioner, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST CO. OF WILLISTON, et al.

No. 18-8060.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied.
Charlise WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6159.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Vickie L. SANDERS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8932.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Anthony FOX, petitioner, v. John POWELL, et al.

No. 18-243.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Eric Sijohn BROWN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6024.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Reed Kirk McDONALD, petitioner, v. ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO.

No. 18-1290.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------


         The  undersigned,  a member of the Board of  Directors or an officer of
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY HOLDINGS COMPANY, an Iowa corporation (the "Company"), hereby
constitutes  and appoints  Douglas L.  Anderson and Paul J. Leighton and each of
them, as his/her true and lawful  attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of
substitution  and  resubstitution,  for  and in  his/her  stead,  in any and all
capacities,  to sign on his/her behalf the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for
the fiscal year ending  December 31, 2002 and to execute any amendments  thereto
and to file the same,  with all  exhibits  thereto,  and all other  documents in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and applicable
stock  exchanges,  with the full power and  authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing necessary or advisable to all intents and purposes as he/she
might or could do in  person,  hereby  ratifying  and  confirming  all that said
attorney-in-fact  and agent, or his/her substitute or substitutes,  may lawfully
do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Executed as of March 31, 2003.


/s/ David L. Sokol                                /s/ Gregory E. Abel
------------------                               --------------------
DAVID L. SOKOL                                        GREGORY E. ABEL


/s/ Patrick J. Goodman                           /s/ Stanley J. Bright
----------------------                           ---------------------
PATRICK J. GOODMAN                                   STANLEY J. BRIGHT


/s/ Edgar D. Aronson                             /s/ Walter Scott, Jr.
--------------------                             ---------------------
EDGAR D. ARONSON                                     WALTER SCOTT, JR.


/s/ Richard R. Jaros                             /s/ Warren E. Buffett
--------------------                             ---------------------
RICHARD R. JAROS                                     WARREN E. BUFFETT


/s/ Marc D. Hamburg                              /s/ W. David Scott
-------------------                              --------------------
MARC D. HAMBURG                                      W. DAVID SCOTT


/s/ John K. Boyer
-----------------
JOHN K. BOYER
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1773

To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

to provide that any participant or beneficiary under an employee benefit

plan shall be entitled to de novo review in court of benefit determinations

under such plan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 12, 1999

Mr. FILNER (for himself and Mrs. EMERSON) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide that any participant or

beneficiary under an employee benefit plan shall be entitled to de novo review in court of benefit determinations

under such plan.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Access to Disability

5 Insurance Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 1773 IH

1 SEC. 2. DE NOVO REVIEW OF BENEFIT DETERMINATIONS.

2 Section 502(e) of the Employee Retirement Income

3 Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1132(e)) is amended by

4 adding at the end the following new paragraph:

5 ‘‘(3) Notwithstanding any provision by the plan for

6 the exercise by a fidiciary of discretionary authority with

7 respect to any benefit determination, any benefit deter8 mination under the plan shall be subject to de novo review

9 by the court.’’.

10 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

11 The amendment made by section 2 of this Act shall

12 apply with respect to causes of action arising after the

13 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Felix A. PRICE, petitioner, v. Darrel VANNOY, Warden.

No. 18M116.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Rico Montell REID, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8978.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Abdifatah Gaas QORANE, aka Qorane Abdifatah Gaas, applicant, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General.

No. 17A1425.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 6, 2018.

Application for stay presented to Justice SOTOMAYOR and referred to the Court denied.
Exhibit 8.1
                        List of Significant Subsidiaries


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Company                                             Place of Incorporation                 Ownership Interest
------------------------------------------------    ---------------------------------    -----------------------
<S>                                                  <C>                                     <C>
Delta Galil USA Inc.                                 Delaware, U.S.A.                        100%

Burlen Corp.                                         Georgia, USA                            100%

Auburn Hosiery Mills Inc.                            Kentucky, USA                           100%

Delta Textile (New York) Ltd.                        New York, U.S.A.                        100%

Delta Galil Europe Ltd.                              U.K.                                    100%

Delta Galil Holland B.V.                             Holland                                 100%

Delta Textile Egypt  - Free Zone S.A.E.              Egypt                                   100%

Century Wear Corporation (WLL)                       Jordan                                  50% (1)

Thai Progress Garment Co. Ltd                        Thailand                                100%

Delta Textile Marketing Ltd.                         Israel                                  100%

Delta Elastic Tapes Industries, Ltd.                 Israel                                  90%
</TABLE>


-------------------------------------
(1)  Delta Galil effectively controls this joint venture as a result of holding
an additional controlling share.
AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner, v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al.

No. 18-182.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
No. 85-1736.

#### Jersey Shore State Bank *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari granted.