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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1778

To provide for equal exchanges of land around the Cascade Reservoir.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 25, 1999

Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

A BILL

To provide for equal exchanges of land around the Cascade

Reservoir.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXCHANGES OF LAND EXCESS TO CASCADE

4 RESERVOIR RECLAMATION PROJECT.

5 Section 5 of Public Law 86–92 (73 Stat. 219) is

6 amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the fol7 lowing:

8 ‘‘(b) LAND EXCHANGES.—

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may ex10 change land of either class described in subsection
2

•S 1778 IS

1 (a) for non-Federal land of not less than approxi2 mately equal value, as determined by an appraisal in

3 accordance with section 206(d) of the Federal Land

4 Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.

5 1716(d)).

6 ‘‘(2) EQUALIZATION.—If the land exchanged

7 under paragraph (1) are not of equal value, the val8 ues shall be equalized in accordance with section

9 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management

10 Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(b)).’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 99

Press Release


JWCHARLES FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPLETES EXCHANGE OFFER
              FOR THE AMERICAS GROWTH FUND


BOCA RATON, FLORIDA, SEPTEMBER 23, 1997: JWCharles Financial
Services, Inc. ("JWCFS") (AMEX: JWC) announced today that its
offer to exchange (the "Exchange Offer") shares of its common
stock for any and all (but not less than 51%) of the outstanding
shares of common stock of The Americas Growth Fund, Inc. ("AGRO")
(NASDAQ: AGRO) was completed with the expiration of the Exchange
Offer at 12:00 midnight, Atlanta time, September 22, 1997.  A
total of approximately 822,938 shares of AGRO common stock
(including approximately 16,380 shares tendered subject to
notices of guaranteed delivery), representing approximately 65%
of the outstanding shares of AGRO common stock, were tendered
pursuant to the Exchange Offer.  All shares of AGRO common stock
tendered were accepted for exchange by JWCFS according to the
terms of the Exchange Offer on the basis of .431 share of JWCFS
common stock for each share of AGRO common stock.  The tendered
shares together with the shares already owned by JWCFS represent
approximately 91% of the outstanding shares of AGRO common stock.

JWCFS, through its wholly owned subsidiaries, engages in
securities brokerage, trading, investment banking and a wide
range of related financial services provided to individuals,
businesses and other brokerage firms.  AGRO is a business
development company with an investment objective of achieving long-
term capital appreciation of assets by investing in U.S.
companies.


This news release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the
solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any sale of
the JWCFS securities referred to in this news release in any
state in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful
prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws
of any such state.
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals.

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number: 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/6/2015 9:28:59 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
EXHIBIT 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Extricity
GmbH (Germany)
Extricity Holding BV (Netherlands)
Extricity SARL (France)
Extricity Software Limited (UK)
Extricity Canada Corp. (Canada)
Peregrine California Padres, Inc. (Delaware)
Peregrine Ontario Blue Jays, Inc. (Delaware)
Peregrine Diamond, Inc. (Delaware)
Peregrine Ottawa Nova Scotia Company (Canada)
Peregrine Networks Canada, Inc. (Canada)
Loran International Technologies, Inc. (Canada)
Loran Network Management Limited (Barbados)
Loran Network Systems, Inc. (Canada)
Loran Network Systems, LLC (Delaware & Barbados)
Loran Technologies, Inc. (Virginia)
eXchangeBridge, Inc. (Delaware)
Peregrine Federal Systems, Inc. (Illinois)
Peregrine Systems of Canada, Inc. (Canada)
FMS Acquisition Corp. (Delaware)
Peregrine Bridge Subsidiary, Inc. (Delaware)
Knowlix Corp. (Delaware)
Peregrine Systems Global Limited (Ireland & Barbados)
Peregrine Systems Operations Limited (Ireland)
Remedy International Limited (UK)
Remedy Software Ireland Limited (Ireland & US)
Peregrine Systems Srl (Italy)
Peregrine Systems GmbH (Germany)
Peregrine Systems Australia Party Limited (Australia)
Peregrine Systems Limited (UK)
Peregrine Systems KK (Japan)
Peregrine Systems GmbH (Switzerland)
Peregrine Systems AB (Sweden)
Peregrine Systems Limited (Hong Kong)
Peregrine Systems AS (Norway)
Peregrine Systems Private Limited (Singapore)
Peregrine Systems OY (Finland)
Peregrine Systems S.A. (Spain)
Peregrine Systems B.V. (The Netherlands)
Peregrine Systems BVBA (Belgium)
Peregrine Systems New Zealand Limited (New Zealand)
Peregrine Systems A/S (Denmark)
Peregrine Systems S.A. (France)
Apsylog, Inc. (California)
Acquisition et Gestion De Donnees et Signaux SA (France)
Peregrine Bodah Inc. (California)
Fprint UK Limited (UK)
Peregrine Systems International Inc. FSC (Barbados)
Peregrine Systems do Brasil Limitada (Brazil)
Peregrine Remedy, Inc. (Delaware)
Remedy Argentina S.A. (Argentina)
Remedy GmbH (Germany)

---



Remedy
Software AB (Sweden)
Peregrine Remedy Cayman Limited (Cayman Islands)
Remedy Acquisition Corp. (Delaware)
Remedy HK, Limited (Hong Kong)
Remedy Spain SL (Spain)
Remedy Switzerland GmbH (Switzerland)
Remedy Pte., Ltd. (Singapore)
Peregrine Systems de Mexico, S de R.L de C.V. (Mexico)
Remedy S.r.l. (Italy)
Remedy S.A.R.L. (France)
Remedy UK, Limited (UK)
Remedy Software Solutions BV (The Netherlands)
Remedy France Holding S.A.S (France)
Remedy do Brasil Ltda. (Brazil)
Peregrine Solutions, Inc. (Delaware)
Peregrine Nova Scotia Company (Nova Scotia)
Peregrine Systems Limited (Canada)
TMSI, Inc. (Virginia)
TSB Acquisition Corp.
Telco Research Corp. (Tennessee)
Ballgame Acquisition Corp. (Delaware)
October Acquisition Corp. (Delaware)

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 32


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Bedrock  Energy,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
Herb T. Sears, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                         /s/ Herb T. Sears
                                         --------------------------------
                                         Herb T. Sears, CFO
Date: November 12, 2008
## In the Court of A ppeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00167

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 236th Distr ict Court Tarrant County, T exas Trial Court No. 236

- 333903

- 22

Before Kerr, Birdwell, a nd Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### S HOPS AT 

### B ROAD 

### , LLC , Appellant

V



### . T REZ 

### S HOPS AT 

### B ROAD 

### LP, T REZ 

### F ORMAN 

### C API TAL 

### F LORIDA 

### F UNDING 

### , LLC, A ND 

### T REZ 

### C APITAL 

### (F LOR IDA 

### ) C ORPORATION 

### , Appellees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Shops at Broad, LLC att empts to appeal from the tr ial court ’s April 11, 20 23

“Order Gran ting Defend ants /Counter

- Plaintiffs /T hird

- P arty Plaintiffs ’ Motion to

R elease Funds H eld in the Cour t ’ s Registr y
. ” We notified Shops at Broad o f our

concern that we lack ed jurisdicti o n over this appeal because that order did not app ear

to be a final j udgment or appe alable interlocut o ry or der. We warned that un less any
party t o t h e a p p eal filed a response within ten days showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we c ould dismiss the appeal for want of juri sdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 4 4.3

. Ten days have passed , and we have received n o response.

O u r appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeal s from final judgment s an d from

int erlocutory orders made immedi ately appealable by statute. Se e Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp

. , 39 S.W.3d 191 , 19 5 (Tex. 2001 )

. Because th is ord er is neither and because there

is no final judgment in this cas e , we dismiss the appeal f or want of jurisdiction. 1 See Tex. R. App . P. 42. 3(a), 43.2(f) ; 3

- T Expl., Inc. v. Greyfox Energy Partners L P

, No. 2

- 06

-
424

- CV, 2007 WL 174467 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Jan. 25, 2007, no p et. ) (mem. op.). /s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice

Delivered: June 29, 2023

1 We deny all p ending motions as moot

.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00514-CV

Daniel Jimenez and Paul Harrison

v.

City of Aransas Pass

On appeal from the

343rd District Court of San Patricio County, Texas

Trial Cause No. S-15-6059CV-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed 

in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the 

judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the 

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the 

appeal are adjudged 75% against appellants and 25% against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 13, 2018
R UGE , A PPELLANT AND C ROSS -A PPELLEE , v. C ONRAD , A DMR ., ET AL ., A PPELLEES

AND C ROSS -A PPELLANTS ; N AVISTAR I NTERNATIONAL T RANSPORTATION C ORPORATION , A PPELLEE
. [Cite as Ruge v. Conrad (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. (No. 97-2328 — Submitted October 14, 1998 at the Mercer County Session — Decided December 30, 1998.)
A PPEAL and C ROSS -A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Clark County, No. 97CA0015.

__________________ Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A ., Stewart R. Jaffy, Marc J. Jaffy and Eric S. Bravo , for appellant and cross-appellee. Betty D. Montgomery , Attorney General, and Michael A. Vanderhorst , Assistant Attorney General, for appellees and cross-appellants Administrator, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, and Industrial Commission. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease and Joseph A. Brunetto , for appellee Navistar International Transportation Corp.

__________________ The cause is dismissed, sua sponte , as having been improvidently allowed. The court orders that the court of appeals’ opinion not be published in the Ohio Official Reports, and that it may not be cited as authority except by the parties inter se

. M OYER , C.J., D OUGLAS , R ESNICK , F.E. S WEENEY , P FEIFER and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , JJ., concur. C OOK , J., dissents.

__________________2 C OOK , J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the decision to dismiss this case as improvidently allowed and, if addressing this case on the merits, would affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                       TO
                       TELEDYNE TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED
               1999 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK COMPENSATION PLAN

                           EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 14, 2000


        Effective as of December 14, 2000, and with respect to Annual Meetings
of the stockholders of the Company occurring thereafter, the second sentence of
Section 4.4(a) of the Teledyne Technologies Incorporated 1999 Non-Employee
Director Stock Compensation Plan, as amended (the "Plan"), is hereby amended to
read in its entirety as follows:

"An Annual Option covering 4,000 shares of Common Stock will be granted to each
Non-Employee Director automatically at the conclusion of each Company Annual
Meeting."

        Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this Amendment No. 2
have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan.
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1972

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 6, 2000

Referred to the Committee on Resources

AN ACT

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the town

of Dolores, Colorado, the current site of the Joe Rowell

Park.

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

S 1972 RFH

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF JOE ROWELL PARK.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Agriculture shall

3 convey to the town of Dolores, Colorado, for no consider4 ation, all right, title, and interest of the United States in

5 and to the parcel of real property described in subsection

6 (b), for open space, park, and recreational purposes.

7 (b) DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY.—

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—The property referred to in

9 subsection (a) is a parcel of approximately 25 acres

10 of land comprising the site of the Joe Rowell Park

11 (including all improvements on the land and equip12 ment and other items of personal property as agreed

13 to by the Secretary) depicted on the map entitled

14 ‘‘Joe Rowell Park,’’ dated July 12, 2000.

15 (2) SURVEY.—

16 (A) IN GENERAL.—The exact acreage and

17 legal description of the property to be conveyed

18 under subsection (a) shall be determined by a

19 survey satisfactory to the Secretary.

20 (B) COST.—As a condition of any convey21 ance under this section, the town of Dolores

22 shall pay the cost of the survey.

23 (c) POSSIBILITY OF REVERTER.—Title to any real

24 property acquired by the town of Dolores, Colorado, under

25 this section shall revert to the United States if the town—
3

S 1972 RFH

1 (1) attempts to convey or otherwise transfer

2 ownership of any portion of the property to any

3 other person;

4 (2) attempts to encumber the title of the prop5 erty; or

6 (3) permits the use of any portion of the prop7 erty for any purpose incompatible with the purpose

8 described in subsection (a) for which the property is

9 conveyed.

10 (d) The map referenced in subsection (b)(1) shall be

11 on file for public inspection in the Office of the Chief of

12 the Forest Service at the Department of Agriculture in

13 Washington, DC.

Passed the Senate October 5 (legislative day, September 22), 2000.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 14-12772

Non-Argument Calendar

__________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cv-00919-JSM-TBM

TERRY L. FISH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GEICO INSURANCE,

CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES,

Defendants-Appellees.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

__________________________

(July 9, 2015)

Before MARTIN, ANDERSON, and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-12772 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Terry L. Fish, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte

dismissal, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), of Fish’s civil complaint as timebarred.

Fish’s complaint alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(“the Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1962, et seq. An action brought under this Act must be 

brought within one year from the date on which the alleged violation occurred. 

Fish’s action was filed more than eight years after his claim accrued. We assume

arguendo that Fish’s claims could be subject to equitable tolling. The district 

court’s order dismissing the action adopted and approved the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation which concluded that “it appears beyond doubt from 

the Complaint itself that Plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that would avoid a 

statute of limitations bar.” (Doc. 7 at 5). 

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint 

for failure to satisfy the statute of limitations. Jackson v. Astrue, 506 F.3d 1349, 

1352 (11th Cir. 2007). We also review de novo whether a plaintiff is entitled to 

equitable tolling. Id. 

Where it is clear from the face of a complaint filed in forma pauperis that the 

claims asserted are barred by the statute of limitations, the claims are properly 

dismissed pursuant to § 1915 as frivolous. Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 

(11th Cir. 2003). 

Case: 14-12772 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Fish’s complaint fails to show that the statute of limitations did not bar the 

action. And, Fish failed to meet his burden of showing that equitable tolling was 

warranted in this case. Equitable tolling is appropriate only when a plaintiff 

untimely files due to “extraordinary circumstances that are both beyond his control 

and unavoidable even with diligence.” Arce v. Garcia, 434 F.3d 1254, 1261 (11th 

Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original). The circumstances 

here were neither beyond Fish’s control nor unavoidable with diligence.

The district court did not err in dismissing this action as frivolous.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-12772 Date Filed: 07/09/2015 Page: 3 of 3
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1736

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit certain youth

to perform certain work with wood products.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 15, 1999

Mr. SPECTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit

certain youth to perform certain work with wood products.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION.

4 Section 13(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of

5 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(c)) is amended by adding at the end

6 the following:

7 ‘‘(6)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), in the adminis8 tration and enforcement of the child labor provisions of

9 this Act, it shall not be considered oppressive child labor

10 for an individual who—
2

S 1736 IS

1 ‘‘(i) is under the age of 18 and over the age of

2 14, and

3 ‘‘(ii) by statute or judicial order is exempt from

4 compulsory school attendance beyond the eighth

5 grade,

6 to be employed inside or outside places of business where

7 machinery is used to process wood products.

8 ‘‘(B) The employment of an individual under sub9 paragraph (A) shall be permitted—

10 ‘‘(i) if the individual is supervised by an adult

11 relative of the individual or is supervised by an adult

12 member of the same religious sect or division as the

13 individual;

14 ‘‘(ii) if the individual does not operate or assist

15 in the operation of power-driven woodworking ma16 chines;

17 ‘‘(iii) if the individual is protected from wood

18 particles or other flying debris within the workplace

19 by a barrier appropriate to the potential hazard of

20 such wood particles or flying debris or by maintain21 ing a sufficient distance from machinery in oper22 ation; and
3

S 1736 IS

1 ‘‘(iv) if the individual is required to use per2 sonal protective equipment to prevent exposure to

3 excessive levels of noise and saw dust.’’.

Æ