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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            184,014 
<SECURITIES>                                    1,024,658 
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,159,901 
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (110,000) 
<INVENTORY>                                     1,048,203 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16,625,114 
<PP&E>                                          9,304,842 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,279,549)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 27,749,228 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           5,336,857 
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            2,425
<OTHER-SE>                                      8,905,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   27,749,228
<SALES>                                        24,194,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               24,261,585
<CGS>                                          17,611,494
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  17,611,494
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                5,678,402
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                620,514
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   351,175
<INCOME-TAX>                                       92,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               258,675
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      258,675
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.04
                                               


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

WARNER RECORDS, INC., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

ALTICE USA, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 

TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

Before the Court is the Motion to Transfer Venue to the Eastern District of New York 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) brought by Defendants Altice USA, Inc. and CSC Holdings, LLC. 

After consideration of said motion and the briefing concerning the same, the Court is of the opinion 

that the motion should be GRANTED. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter shall be transferred to the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of New York. 

Case 2:23-cv-00576-JRG-RSP Document 26-1 Filed 01/29/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 483
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

'

Plaintiff, '

'

versus ' NO. 9:23-CR-6 

'

TYSON BLAKE WELLS, '

'

Defendant. '

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION

ON DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA

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

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. Judge Hawthorn conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and issued his Findings of Fact and 

Recommendation on Guilty Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate 

judge recommended that the court accept the Defendant’s guilty plea. He further 

recommended that the court adjudge the Defendant guilty on Count One of the Indictment filed 

against the Defendant.

The parties have not objected to the magistrate judge’s findings. The court ORDERS 

that the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea of the United States Magistrate 

Judge are ADOPTED. The court accepts the Defendant’s plea but defers acceptance of the 

plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

It is further ORDERED that, in accordance with the Defendant’s guilty plea and the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, the Defendant, Tyson Blake Wells, is 

Case 9:23-cr-00006-MAC-ZJH Document 19 Filed 08/15/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 55
2

adjudged guilty as to Count One of the Indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 

(Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person).

Case 9:23-cr-00006-MAC-ZJH Document 19 Filed 08/15/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 56
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2076

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used in peroxide

stabilizer and compounding.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 8, 1999

Mr. TALENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain chemical used

in peroxide stabilizer and compounding.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.61.05 Phosphoric acid,

[nitrilostris (methylene)]tris- (CAS Nos.

6419–19–8; 10294–56–

1; 7732–18–5) (provided for in subheading

2931.00.9030) ............. Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2001 ’’.
2

•HR 2076 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section applies to articles entered, or withdrawn from

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
TiENERGY, LLC, petitioner, v. WISCONSIN CENTRAL LTD.

No. 18-610.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

AT&T SERVICES INC., AT&T MOBILITY 

LLC, AND AT&T CORP., 

 Defendants. 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

 Intervenor. 

 Case No. 2:23-cv-00468-JRG-RSP 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF 

INTERVENOR NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Nokia of America Corporation makes this 

Corporate Disclosure Statement. Nokia of America Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of 

Nokia Solutions and Networks B.V., a company organized under the laws of the Netherlands, 

which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, a company organized 

under the laws of Finland. Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy is a wholly owned subsidiary of 

Nokia Corporation. Nokia Corporation is a publicly traded company organized under the laws of 

Finland. 

Dated: December 12, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Deron R. Dacus (TBN 00790553) 

ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

THE DACUS FIRM, P.C. 

821 ESE Loop 323 

Suite 430 

Tyler, Texas 75701 

Case 2:23-cv-00468-JRG-RSP Document 25 Filed 12/12/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 874
 2 

Telephone: 903.705.1117 

Facsimile: 903.581.2543 

Email: ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Email: msyungwirth@duanemorris.com 

John R. Gibson 

Email: jrgibson@duanemorris.com 

Alice E. Snedeker 

aesnedeker@duanemorris.com 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Telephone: (404) 253-6900 

Counsel for Intervenor Nokia of America 

Corporation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to 

electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system 

per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on December 12, 2023. 

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Case 2:23-cv-00468-JRG-RSP Document 25 Filed 12/12/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 875
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12



                            VASTAR RESOURCES, INC.
                                  EXHIBIT 12
               STATEMENT SETTING FORTH DETAIL OF COMPUTATION OF
                      RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                            For the years ended
                                                December 31,
                                        -----------------------------
(Millions of dollars)                    1997     1996    1995   1994
except ratio amounts)                   ------   ------  ------ ------
<S>                                     <C>      <C>     <C>    <C>
Income from continuing operations
before income taxes, minority
interest and cumulative effect of
change in accounting principle(1)......  $234.6  $212.7  $ 56.2  $153.6
Fixed Charges:                                   
Interest expense charged to income,              
and portion of rentals                           
representative of interest(2)...........   47.8    52.3    57.0    66.3
Capitalized Interest....................    ---     ---     ---     ---
                                         ------  ------  ------  ------
Total fixed charges.....................   47.8    52.3    57.0    66.3
                                         ------  ------  ------  ------
Earnings (1) + (2)                       $282.4  $265.0  $113.2  $219.9
                                         ======  ======  ======  ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges          5.9     5.1     2.0     3.3
                                         ======  ======  ======  ======
</TABLE>

The Company has no issuances of preferred stock.
Prior to the inception of the Company on October 1, 1993, the determination
of fixed charges is not applicable in that the Company had no incurred debt.
The Company's ratio of earnings to fixed charges for the three months ended
December 31, 1993 was 1.2.
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION.

No. 18-1368

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion of Southern California Edison Company for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Motion of Edison Electric Institute for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Motion of Shareholders in California Investor-Owned Utilities for leave to file a brief as *amici curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One denied.
Bruce Mayo ENNIS, Petitioner, v. NEVADA.

No. 18-9501

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2212

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain fluorinated compound.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 15, 1999

Mr. HAYWORTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on a certain fluorinated

compound.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.98 Methanone, (4-fluorophenyl)phenyl-

(CAS No. 345–83–5) (provided for

in subheading 2914.70.90) ............... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2003 ’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to goods entered,
2

HR 2212 IH

1 or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

2 the date that is 15 days after the date of the enactment

3 of this Act.

Æ
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30761

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LESLIE KEITH BLOXOM

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:07-CR-50100-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Leslie Keith Bloxom has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Bloxom has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Norris Lynn FISHER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8910.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 5, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT A 

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 29-1 Filed 03/08/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 439
Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 29-1 Filed 03/08/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 440
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

ROGER LAVOY DODD, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-146

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §

§

Respondent. §

 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

A Final Judgment was previously entered dismissing this petition for writ of habeas

corpus. In dismissing the petition, the court overruled objections petitioner filed to a Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner has now filed a motion seeking leave to file a second set of objections to the

Report and Recommendation. As the motion was filed within 28 days of the date on which the

Final Judgment was entered, the court will liberally construe the motion as a motion to alter or

amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Generally, a Rule 59(e)

motion must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly

discovered evidence. Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863 (5th Cir. 2003); Simmons

v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990).

Petitioner continues to maintain he is entitled to be released from prison. His argument

is based on the assertion that if he had received two economic impact payments under the

Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, he would have been able to rent an apartment

and would have therefore been eligible for release on parole.

As the court previously stated, petitioner’s assertion regarding his release on parole is

speculative. He has therefore failed to demonstrate a finding in his favor would show that the fact

or duration of his confinement is unconstitutional and is, accordingly, not able to assert his claim

in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 483 (1973).

Case 9:23-cv-00146-MAC-CLS Document 11 Filed 08/22/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 57
Plaintiff has not presented any new evidence. Further, he has failed to demonstrate that

the dismissal of his lawsuit constituted a manifest error of law or fact. It is accordingly 

ORDERED that motion to alter or amend judgment (#7) is DENIED.

2

________________________________________

MARCIA A. CRONE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 22nd day of August, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00146-MAC-CLS Document 11 Filed 08/22/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 58
Samuel E. AUSTIN, Petitioner, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.

No. 19M26

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for a writ of certiorari out of time denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Strategic Diagnostics
Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies, based on such officer's knowledge, that:

         (i)      the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
                  for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully
                  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
                  15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
                  as amended; and

         (ii)     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the
Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.


Date: May 7, 2004                                    /s/ Matthew H. Knight
      ------------                                   -------------------------
                                                     Matthew H. Knight
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
Schedule of Omitted Concession Agreements



 Exhibit 4.05 
 SCHEDULE OF OMITTED CONCESSION AGREEMENTS FOR LOCAL SWITCHED, FIXED-LINE TELEPHONE SERVICE 
 As
these agreements are identical in every case except for their reference number and the Region and sectors covered by them, we have, for ease of reference, filed only the relevant standard concession agreement approved by ANATEL and provided this
schedule to indicate the concession agreement that we have omitted from filing as an exhibit to this annual report on Form 20-F. 
  

	1.	Concession Agreement for Local, Switched, Fixed-Line Telephone Service between ANATEL and Telemar Norte Leste S.A., No. 91/2011, dated June 30, 2011
Dora L. ADKINS, petitioner, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC.

No. 18-6386.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT L. BURGESS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 367 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court Cause No. DA-24-0108

PROTECT THE GALLATIN RIVER, 

Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

GALLATIN COUNTY, DEPARTMENT

OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT, GALLATIN COUNTY

COMMISSION, AND JEFF AND JIRINA

PFEIEL,

Defendants/Appellees.

ORDER GRANTING 

APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED

MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE OPENING BRIEF

Upon motion of Plaintiff/Appellant, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Plaintiff/Appellant will have up to and 

including May 8th, 2024 to file their opening brief in this matter.

DATED THIS ____ DAY OF MARCH, 2024.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 21 2024

03/21/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0108
EXHIBIT 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Craig Grossman certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Glas-Aire Industries
Group, Ltd.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
     fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
     summarize and report financial information; and

     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls
     over financial reporting.

Date: November 14, 2003

/s/ Craig Grossman
------------------
Craig Grossman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Erik WARD, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 18-9810

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Mehrdad HOSSEINI, Petitioner v. Kevin MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

No. 18-1517

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

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