alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TDCJ Offender Details Page 1of2 

# S3,+1J-VI TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE New Offender Search 

# Offender Information Details

Return to Search list
SID Number: TDCJ Number: Name: Race: Gender: DOB: Maximum Sentence Date: Current Facility: Projected Release Date: Parole Eligibility Date: Offender Visitation Eligible: 02092863 01680339 LOPEZ,PEDRO GARCIA 

### H 

### M 1953-09-02 2022-09-12 STEVENSON 2022-09-12 2016-09-11 YES Information providedis updated once daily during weekdays andmultiple times perday on visitation days. 

### Because this information is subject

### to change, familymembers and friends are encouraged

### to call the unitprior

### to traveling for

### a visit.

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE: Scheduled Release Date: Offender is not scheduled for release at this time. Scheduled Release Type: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. Scheduled Release Location: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

# Parole Review Information
Offense History: Offense

Date 

### I Offense 

### I Sentence Date 

### I County Case No. 

### I 

## I Sentence (YYMM-DD)


### http://offender.tdcj.texas.gov/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=02092863 8/25/2015
### Proposed Provision: B3.9. Beginning with those newly eligible for OASDI benefits in 2036, gradually reduce the 15 percent PIA factor in each year so that it reaches 10 percent for those newly eligible in 2065 and later.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE SHEETS,
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND FOOTNOTES TO THE COMPANY'S 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFEERENCE TO SUCH
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001058581
<NAME> PLAINWELL INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,369
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,761)
<INVENTORY>                                     31,120
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                59,967
<PP&E>                                         162,072
<DEPRECIATION>                                (27,655)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 227,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,451
<BONDS>                                        152,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       (875)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   227,276
<SALES>                                         53,259
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,259
<CGS>                                           51,406
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,776
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,469)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,969)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,969)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
FILE COPY
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Post Office Box 12248 Austin, Texas 78711 (512)463-1312 October 17, 2013 Mr. Steven Rade Guy The Norman Law Firm 215 East Commerce St, 2nd Floor Jacksonville, TX 75766-1870 Mr. Gregory Lee West 

### Cherokee County Jail 272 Underwood St. Rusk, TX 75785 RE: Case Number: 13-0760 

### Court ofAppeals Number: 12-13-00273-CV Trial Court Number: 2011 -02-0106 

### Style: IN RE GREGORY LEE WEST
Dear Counsel: 

### Today the Supreme Court lifted the abatement order of September 30, 2013 and reinstated the petition for writ of habeas corpus in the above-referenced case. The Supreme Court requests that real party in interestfile a response to the petition for writ of habeas corpus in theabove-referenced case. The response is due to be filed no later than9:00 a.m., October 23, 2013. PLEASE NOTE pursuant to Misc. Docket No. 11-9152

- Electronic-Filing Rules, Attorneys must e-file all documents (except documents submitted under seal) through Texas.gov. Persons not represented by an attorney may e-file documents, 

### but e-filing is not required. Two paper copies of the requested response must be filed within three business days after the response is e-filed. The paper courtesy copies must be the printed version of the file-stamped e-filed response and must comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9. Y For more details, see the Court's Order Requiring Electronic Documents in the Supreme Court of Texas at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/miscdocket/11/11915200.pdf. Please note all notices or communication about this case will be sent by email in lieu ofmailing 

### paper documents. (See Misc. Docket No. 11-9152, Electronic-Filing Rule No. 9). Sincerely,
Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk 

### by Claudia Jenks, ChiefDeputy Clerk cc: Ms. Laveme Lusk Ms. Cathy S. Lusk 

### Ms. Kelley Denney Peacock Cherokee County District Attorney PO Box 839 Linden, TX 75563 

# FILED INCOURTOFAPPEALS 12thCourtofAppeals District

/LER TEXAS 

# CATHYS. LUSrdCLERJ

Ml

--
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE JESUS MERCADO RAMIREZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 14-72415 

Agency No. A201-034-249 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 10, 2018**

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Jose Jesus Mercado Ramirez petitions for review of his removal proceedings 

in the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

Mercado argues that the Board erred by retroactively applying In re Leal, 26 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

I. & N. Dec. 20, 27 (B.I.A. 2012) (Leal I) to conclude that his Arizona conviction 

for felony endangerment was a crime involving moral turpitude, that we should not 

apply our decision in Leal v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014) (Leal II)

to conclude that Arizona endangerment is a crime involving moral turpitude for 

similar reasons, and that the definition of “crime involving moral turpitude” is 

unconstitutionally vague as applied to non-fraudulent crimes. Mercado’s first and 

third arguments our foreclosed by our decision in Olivas-Mottas v. Whitaker, __ 

F.3d __, No. 14-70543 (9th Cir. __, 2018). As to Mercado’s second argument, we 

did not decide in Olivas-Mottas whether Leal II changed the law and thus had a 

retroactive effect. But we do not need to decide that issue in this case because 

Leal I did not change the law, and Mercado has not argued to us that the Board

erred by applying Leal I for any reason other than retroactivity and vagueness.

PETITION DENIED.
Mercado Ramirez v. Whitaker, No. 14-72415

WATFORD, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

For the reasons stated in my dissent in Olivas-Motta v. Whitaker, __ F.3d __, 

No. 14-70543 (9th Cir. 2018), I would grant Jose Jesus Mercado Ramirez’s 

petition for review and remand so that the Board of Immigration Appeals can 

analyze the status of his conviction for reckless endangerment under the law as it 

stood in 2001, when he pleaded guilty. 

FILED

DEC 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
|EXHIBIT 99.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER


OF GUARANTY
BANCSHARES, INC.
PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, that:
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 1. | the
report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of           the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | the
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material           respects,
the Companys financial condition and results of operations.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|By: /s/ Arthur B. Scharlach, Jr.

Arthur B. Scharlach, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer


Dated: May 14, 2003


26
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3499 

AN ACT 

To amend the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

Act of 2006 to repeal certain obsolete requirements, and 

for other purposes. 

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

†S 3499 ES

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE DHS CONTRACTING RE2 QUIREMENTS. 

3 The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform 

4 Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–295; 120 Stat. 1394) is 

5 amended by striking section 692 (6 U.S.C. 792). 

Passed the Senate June 7, 2022. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3499 

AN ACT 

To amend the Post-Katrina Emergency Managelete requirements, and for other purposes. ment Reform Act of 2006 to repeal certain obso-
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

This
14th day of March, 2008



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ R. Daniel Blanton        
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(principal executive officer)
|                             
|/s/ Darrell R. Rains         
|Chief Financial Officer      
|(principal financial officer)



137
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

Order 

January 29, 2020

158764

In re CHRISTOPHER ROSS, JR., Minor _________________________________________

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 158764

COA: 331096 

Oakland CC Family Div:

CHRISTOPHER ROSS, JR., 2014-826056-DL

Respondent-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1). The appellant shall file a supplemental 

brief within 42 days of the date of this order addressing: (1) whether appeals from 

juvenile adjudications for criminal offenses are governed by the time limits for civil cases 

or by the time limits for criminal cases, see MCR 7.305(C)(2); (2) whether the standard 

for granting a new trial in a juvenile delinquency case is the same as the standard for 

granting a new trial in a criminal case, compare MCR 3.992(A) with MCR 6.431(B); (3) 

whether juveniles who claim a deprivation of their due process right to counsel must 

satisfy the two-part test set forth in Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687 (1984); 

and (4) whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s decision to grant 

the respondent a new trial based on evidence that trial counsel did not obtain or present.

In addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix 

conforming to MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the 

appendix page numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellee shall file a 

supplemental brief within 21 days of being served with the appellant’s brief. The 

appellee shall also electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use 

of the appendix filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant 
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 29, 2020

t0122

2

Clerk

within 14 days of being served with the appellee’s brief. The parties should not submit 

mere restatements of their application papers. 

The Appellate Practice Section of the State Bar of Michigan, the Criminal Defense 

Attorneys of Michigan, the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, the Juvenile 

Law Center, and the University of Michigan Law School Juvenile Justice Clinic are 

invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the 

determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to 

file briefs amicus curiae.
### Proposed Provision: B3.14. Beginning with those newly eligible for OASDI benefits in 2025, reduce the 15 percent PIA factor by 2 percentage points per year so that it reaches 5 percent for those newly eligible in 2029 and later.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3402 

To amend title 54, United States Code, and the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act to prohibit medical discrimination relating to applications for commercial use authorizations and special recreation permits, 

and to clarify the status of the holders of commercial use authorizations 

and special recreation permits, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 15, 2021 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. RISCH, Mr. MARSHALL, 

Mr. CASSIDY, Mr. CRAPO, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. SCOTT of 

South Carolina, and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the following bill; 

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

A BILL 

To amend title 54, United States Code, and the Federal 

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to prohibit medical 

discrimination relating to applications for commercial use 

authorizations and special recreation permits, and to 

clarify the status of the holders of commercial use authorizations and special recreation permits, and for other 

purposes. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3402 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Guides and 

3 Outfitters from Coronavirus Vaccine Mandates in the 

4 Great Outdoors Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMMERCIAL USE AU6 THORIZATIONS. 

7 Section 101925(b) of title 54, United States Code, 

8 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(3) PROHIBITION OF MEDICAL DISCRIMINA10 TION.—The Secretary shall not deny an application 

11 for a commercial use authorization under this sec12 tion for any reason relating to the coronavirus vac13 cination status of an applicant or an employee of an 

14 applicant. 

15 ‘‘(4) STATUS OF HOLDER OF COMMERCIAL USE

16 AUTHORIZATION.—A holder of a commercial use au17 thorization issued under this section shall not be 

18 considered to be an employee, contractor, or subcon19 tractor of the Federal Government.’’. 

20 SEC. 3. FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY PERMIT21 TING. 

22 Section 803(h) of the Federal Lands Recreation En23 hancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6802(h)) is amended— 

24 (1) by striking ‘‘The Secretary may’’ and in25 serting the following: 

26 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may’’; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3402 IS

1 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(2) PROHIBITION OF MEDICAL DISCRIMINA3 TION.—The Secretary shall not deny an application 

4 for a special recreation permit under paragraph (1) 

5 for any reason relating to the coronavirus vaccina6 tion status of an applicant or an employee of an ap7 plicant. 

8 ‘‘(3) STATUS OF HOLDER OF SPECIAL RECRE9 ATION PERMIT.—A holder of a special recreation 

10 permit issued under paragraph (1) shall not be con11 sidered to be an employee, contractor, or subcon12 tractor of the Federal Government.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### ADA LAMBETH v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY.

(Filed 14 December, 1927.)

Civil action-, before *Hatrding, J.,*at July Terra, 1927, of DavidsON.

Tbe testimony tended to show that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to feed and operate a cigarette packing machine and that she was required to “keep it clean and brush it off at 4 o’clock and keep it clean from cigarettes.” The plaintiff testified that she was never told to stop the machine or how to stop it when it became necessary to clean it. That in attempting to clean the machine while in motion a cup on the machine hit her hand and knocked it in the machine, cutting off the end of her right index finger.

Issues of negligence, contributory negligence, assumption of risk and damages were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of plaintiff.

From judgment of the court upon the verdict the defendant appealed.

*Wallace & Wells and Phillips & Bowers for plain&jf.*

*Paper & Paper and Earle McMichael for defendant.*

Pee CuRIam.

The record presents issues of fact only. These issues were submitted to the jury upon a correct charge to which no exception was taken. A perusal of the case convinces us .that no error was committed in the trial, and the judgment is affirmed.

No error.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TYRONE TERRY, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-4423

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed October 24, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Pinellas County; Philip J. Federico, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KELLY, KHOUZAM, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-6227 QUINTON LEE COOK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. VAUGHN; W. PERKINS, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-6239 QUINTON LEE COOK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MR. THORNBURG; B. T. KORNEGAY, Defendants - Appellees.Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge; W. Earl Britt, District Judge. (CA-96-7-5-BR, CA-96-6-5-F) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: June 25, 19962 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quinton Lee Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaints. We have reviewedthe records and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Cook v. Vaughn , No. CA-96-7-5-BR; Cook v. Thornburg , No. CA-96-6-5-F (Jan. 30, 1996; Jan. 31, 1996). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, February 26, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, February 26, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0136. LOOMIS E. DEAVOURS et al. v. RES-GA HRL, LLC.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

14A06240
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Investment Holdings

Office of the Chief Actuary 

Investment transactions

Interest rates by month

Time series for selected financial item

Trust fund data

Trust fund operations for selected time period

      The Social Security trust funds, managed by the Department      of the Treasury, are the Old-Age      and Survivors Insurance (**OASI**) and       Disability Insurance (**DI**)      Trust Funds. Since the beginning of the Social Security program, all           securities held by the trust funds have been issued by the Federal Government.      
      There are two general types of such securities:       - special issues —securities       available only to the trust funds; and
- public issues—securities available to the public          (marketable securities).
     The trust funds now hold only special issues, but they have held      public issues in the past.

     Monthly reports from the           Bureau of the Fiscal Service     provide data on the amount held at the end of the month by type of     security, interest rate, and      maturity date. The two forms below allow you to access such data.     Data are available for 1990 and later.
**Detailed report for a month**lists        invested amounts by type of security,interest rate, maturity years,        & trust fundSelect year                          (any year after 1989)Select month Jan  Feb         Mar  Apr         May  Jun              Jul  Aug         Sep  Oct         Nov  Dec                  If you select a month for which data are not available,          data for the closest available month will be provided.                             **Time series report**lists          invested amounts by type of security        Select fund          OASI                 DI                 Both funds combinedSelect frequency           Monthly         Quarterly         AnnualSelect years          Last 2	Last 3	Last 4	Last 5	Last 10	All years                   Footer menu