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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2253 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2253

 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit the use under 
    that Act of any item or information obtained by trespassing on 
   privately owned property, or otherwise taken from privately owned 
       property without the consent of the owner of the property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 1999

 Mr. Calvert introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to prohibit the use under 
    that Act of any item or information obtained by trespassing on 
   privately owned property, or otherwise taken from privately owned 
       property without the consent of the owner of the property.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Property Owners Protection Act of 
1999''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON USE OF ITEMS AND INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM 
              PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY WITHOUT CONSENT.

    Section 11 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1540) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) Restriction on Use of Items or Information Obtained From 
Privately Owned Property without Consent.--Any item or information 
obtained by trespassing on privately owned property, or otherwise taken 
from privately owned property without the consent of the owner of the 
property--
            ``(1) shall not be admissible as evidence in any criminal, 
        civil, or administrative proceeding under this Act; and
            ``(2) may not otherwise be used to administer this Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

JUAN ANTONIO MARTINEZ, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-27

§

SERGIO PEREZ, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Juan Antonio Martinez, an inmate confined at the Gib Lewis Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, CorrectionalInstitutions Division, proceeding pro se, brought this

action against Sergio Perez, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the Gib Lewis Unit.1

The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate

Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. 

The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the action without prejudice. To date, the parties

have not filed objections to the report.

The court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available

evidence. After careful review, the court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is

ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

1

Plaintiff originally named Martin Perez as the lead defendant in this action. On July 10, 2023, however, the

magistrate judge granted plaintiff’s motion to correct the defendant’s name to Sergio Perez.

Case 9:23-cv-00027-MAC-ZJH Document 16 Filed 07/13/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 38
Case 9:23-cv-00027-MAC-ZJH Document 16 Filed 07/13/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 39
NO. 07-07-0137-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 25, 2007

______________________________

CAPITOL INDEMNITY CORPORATION, APPELLANT

V.

RONZANI INC., D/B/A RONPARCO, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 96 DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY; TH

NO. 96-214309-05; HONORABLE JEFF WALKER, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Capital Indemnity Corporation, appellant, has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal

because it has reached a resolution of the present controversy with Ronzani, Inc,

appellees. No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Because the parties

have agreed that each shall be responsible for their own appellate costs, costs of this
2

appeal shall be borne by the party that incurred them. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d), 6.6.

No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice
Order filed February 12, 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00016

- CR

____________ WARREN L

. HOUSTON , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1386667



### ABATEMENT ORDER
The clerk’s record in this appeal was filed February 10, 2015. According to the record, appellant entered a plea of guilty, without an agreed recommendation on punishment, to aggravated robbery. On September 22, 2014, t he trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for eighteen years in prison. Appellant filed a pro se motion for new trial and notice of appeal. No attorney has made an appearance on appeal on behalf of appellant. This court is unaware whether appellant is entitled to appointment of
counsel. Accordingl y, we enter the following order:We ORDER the judge of the 208th District Court to immediately conduct a

hearing at which appellant, appellant ’ s counsel, if any, and counsel for the State shall participat e, either in person or by video teleconference, to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute his appeal, and, if so, whether appellant is indigent and, thus entitled to appointed counsel on appeal. The judge shall appoint appellate counsel for appel lant if necessary. The judge shall see that a record of the hearing is made, shall make any necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law and
orders , and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of the hearing and a supplemental clerk ’ s record c ontaining the court’s order and any findings and conclusions. The transcribed record of the hearing, the supplemental clerk’s record
, and a videotape or compact disc, if an y, containing a recording of any video
teleconference shall be filed with the clerk of this court within thirty days of the
date of this order.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court ’ s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court ’ s active docket when the supplemental records are filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion

.

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries



|                                                          |  |             
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|Name                                                      |  | Jurisdiction
|Dominion Homes Financial Services, Ltd.                   |  | Ohio        
|                                                          | 
|Dominion Structural Warranty Company, LLC                 |  | Ohio        
|                                                          | 
|Resolution Property Company, LLC                          |  | Ohio        
|                                                          | 
|Alliance Title Agency of Kentucky, LLC                    |  | Kentucky    
|                                                          | 
|Dominion Homes of Kentucky, Ltd. (d/b/a Dominion Homes) |  | Kentucky    
|                                                          | 
|Dominion Homes of Kentucky GP, LLC                        |  | Kentucky    
|                                                          | 
|Dominion Homes Realty, LLC                                |  | Kentucky    

All listed subsidiaries are wholly-owned, except for Dominion Homes of Kentucky, Ltd.
(DHK). DHK is a Kentucky limited liability partnership whose general partner is Dominion Homes of Kentucky GP, LLC and whose limited partner is Dominion Homes, Inc. DHK is 99% owned by Dominion Homes, Inc. and 1% owned by Dominion Homes
of Kentucky GP, LLC.
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/02/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       35,129
COMMITMENTS
   1,319   17,743    2,377   31,153   14,788   34,849   34,908      280      221

CHANGES FROM 09/25/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -5,502)
  -2,068   -1,090     -169   -3,330   -4,278   -5,567   -5,537       65       35

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     3.8     50.5      6.8     88.7     42.1     99.2     99.4      0.8      0.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       35)
       5        9        6       18       14       26       27`

---

Updated October 5, 2012
Jamar Alonzo QUARLES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-778.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 11, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted.
No. 6:23-cv-00374

Christian Blanchard,

Plaintiff,

v.

At Home Healthcare,

Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff Christian Blanchard filed this action asserting negligence claims. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Doc. 

2. 

On October 3, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction. Doc. 8. Plaintiff did not file written 

objections. When a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report, the court reviews the record only for clear error. See Douglass 

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996).

Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and 

recommendation. The court dismissesthis action without prejudice. 

Any pending motions are denied as moot.

So ordered by the court on December 14, 2023.

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

United States District Judge

Case 6:23-cv-00374-JCB-KNM Document 10 Filed 12/14/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 25
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,648,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,242,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   412,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,116,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,294,000
<PP&E>                                      18,857,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,693,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,713,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,385,000
<BONDS>                                      5,612,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,600,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,713,000
<SALES>                                     36,167,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,331,000
<CGS>                                       16,251,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               41,145,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (58,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,051,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,807,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,807,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,807,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.71)
        

</TABLE>
Capital Contribution Agreement



 Exhibit 10.15 
 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 
 THIS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT
is made and entered into as of this 20th day of April, 2012, by and between (i) Awesome Again Racing Corporation (“Raceco”) and (ii) Golden Pegasus Racing Incorporated (“Golden Pegasus”). 

W I T N E S S E T H: 
 1. Capital Contribution. Golden Pegasus is currently the sole shareholder of Raceco and in connection with the anticipated initial public offering (the “IPO”) of common shares of Raceco,
Golden Pegasus hereby agrees to pay any and all commissions and expense reimbursements paid to selling agents in connection with the IPO through an additional capital contribution to Raceco. No additional shares are to be issued in consideration for
any such additional capital contribution. Any such additional capital contribution will be paid no later than the closing date of the IPO. 
 2. Representations and Warranties of Golden Pegasus. Golden Pegasus represents and warrants to Raceco: 
 (a) Binding Obligation. This Capital Contribution Agreement is a valid, binding obligation of Golden Pegasus, enforceable in accordance with its terms; and 

(b) No Violation. The execution, delivery and performance of the Capital Contribution Agreement by Golden Pegasus do not violate
any laws, regulations, orders, decrees or agreements binding upon or affecting Golden Pegasus or this transaction; 
 3.
Representations and Warranties of Raceco. Raceco represents and warrants to Golden Pegasus that the execution, delivery and performance of this Capital Contribution Agreement by Raceco do not violate any laws, regulations, orders, decrees or
agreements binding upon or affecting Raceco or this transaction. 
 4. Governing Law. The Capital Contribution Agreement
was entered into and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been signed by Golden Pegasus and Raceco as of the
date first above written. 
  

			
	 AWESOME AGAIN RACING

CORPORATION

		
	By:	 	     /s/ Lyle Strachan

	Name:	 	Lyle Strachan
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer
	
	 GOLDEN PEGASUS RACING
 INCORPORATED

		
	By:	 	     /s/ Michael Rogers

	Name:	 	Michael Rogers
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer



  
 2
Karen Jean ROLLINS, Petitioner, v. INSTITUTIONS FOR LIFE

No. 19M23

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Ray Lamar JOHNSTON, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 18-5793.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2035

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 13 (legislative day, JULY 12), 1999

Received

AN ACT

To correct errors in the authorizations of certain programs

administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 2035 RDS

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES

2 CODE.

3 (a) MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY.—Section 30104 of

4 title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking

5 ‘‘$81,200,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$98,313,500’’.

6 (b) MOTOR VEHICLE INFORMATION.—Section 32102

7 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking

8 ‘‘$6,200,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$9,562,500’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 12, 1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CEO CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Sec. 1350, as adopted), Patrick O’Dea, the Chief Executive Officer of Peet’s Coffee &Tea, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 

 

1. The Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 2, 2005, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Annual Report” ) fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 

 

2.The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 16th day of March, 2005.
```

```

----

Updated December 6, 2013
EXHIBIT 99.2
                               CFO CERTIFICATION*
     Pursuant  to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350,  as  adopted), Mark N. Rudolph, Chief Financial Officer of Peet's Coffee &
Tea,  Inc. (the "COMPANY"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
1.     The  Company's  Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December
29, 2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.2 (the "PERIODIC
REPORT")  fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d)
of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  and
2.     The  information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.
     IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 28th
day  of  March,  2003.

                                        /s/  Mark  N.  Rudolph
                                        ----------------------
                                        Mark  N.  Rudolph
                                        Chief  Financial  Officer


















A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Peet's  Coffee & Tea, Inc. and will be retained by Peet's Coffee &
Tea,  Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon  request.

*This  certification  "accompanies"  the  annual report on Form 10-K to which it
relates,  is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc.
under  the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,  as amended (whether made before or after the date of the annual report on
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.
```
  
 
WHEAT - MINNEAPOLIS GRAIN EXCHANGE                                   Code-001626
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 07/31/12          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:       40,428
COMMITMENTS
   8,064    1,186      486   21,578   28,078   30,128   29,750   10,299   10,677

CHANGES FROM 07/24/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:        265)
     194    1,002      110     -211     -767       93      344      172      -79

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    19.9      2.9      1.2     53.4     69.5     74.5     73.6     25.5     26.4

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       49)
      13        3        4       28       23       41       30
```

----

Updated August 3, 2012
Exhibit 4.24

 

Summary of the Share Purchase Agreement entered into between Transmissora Aliança de Energia Elétrica S.A. and Abengoa Concessões Brasil Holding S.A.

 

On March 16, 2012, Transmissora Aliança de Energia Elétrica S.A. (“Taesa”) entered into an agreement for sale of shares held by Abengoa Concessões Brasil Holding S.A. (“Abengoa Concessões”), representing 50% of the share capital of União de Transmissoras de Energia Elétrica Holding S.A. (“Unisa”), which in turn owns 100% of the share capital of the transmission companies:

 

ATE Transmissora de Energia S.A. (“ATE”),

ATE II Transmissora de Energia S.A. (“ATE II”), and

ATE III Transmissora de Energia S.A. (“ATE III”) and

STE — Sul Transmissora de Energia S.A. (“STE”),

— when jointly referred to, the “Subsidiaries”.

 

The acquisition price was R$ 863,500,000.00 (eight hundred and sixty three million, five hundred thousand Reais) as of December 31, 2011.

 

The acquisition price will be adjusted by the variation in the Selic rate (the rate calculated by the Special Settlement and Custody System — Sistema Especial de Liquidação e Custódia, or Selic), from December 31, 2010 up to the business day immediately prior to the closing date of the transaction, and reduced, as applicable, by 50% of any dividends or Interest on Equity paid by the Subsidiaries during that period. The acquisition price will also be updated in accordance with any increase or reduction of capital during the period.

 

In the event of rescission of the Share Purchase and Sale Agreement, the Infringing party will be subject to a penalty equivalent to 10% of the acquisition price.

 

The Share Purchase and Sale Agreement contains warranties, guarantees and obligations by Taesa and by Abengoa Concessões. The closing of the transaction is subject to certain conditions, including:

 

·                  approval by stockholders;

·                  approval by the competent authorities, including the National Electricity Agency (Agência Nacional de Energia Elétrica, or Aneel); and

·                  any consents from the banks financing the Subsidiaries.

 

The date of completion of the transaction will be decided after these conditions have been met. The acquisition will also be submitted for approval by the Economic Defense Administrative Council (Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica, or Cade), within the period and in the manner specified in the relevant legislation.
In Re Hakeem SULTAANA, petitioner.

No. 18-6449.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.