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

<PAGE> 


     <ARTICLE> 5
     <LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
     CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
     OF J. C. PENNEY FUNDING CORPORATION AS OF AUGUST 1, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED
     IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
     </LEGEND>
     <MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
            
     <S>                             <C>
     <PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
     <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
     <PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1999
     <CASH>                                               0
     <SECURITIES>                                         0
     <RECEIVABLES>                                    2,738
     <ALLOWANCES>                                         0
     <INVENTORY>                                          0
     <CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,738
     <PP&E>                                               0
     <DEPRECIATION>                                       0
     <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,738
     <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,571
     <BONDS>                                              0
     <COMMON>                                           145
     <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
     <PREFERRED>                                          0
     <OTHER-SE>                                       1,022
     <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,738
     <SALES>                                              0
     <TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
     <CGS>                                                0
     <TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
     <OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
     <LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
     <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (23)
     <INCOME-PRETAX>                                     23
     <INCOME-TAX>                                         8
     <INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 15
     <DISCONTINUED>                                       0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
     <CHANGES>                                            0
     <NET-INCOME>                                        15
     <EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
     <EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
             


</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6626 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

3903 Melear Drive in Arlington, Texas, as the ‘‘Ron Wright Post Office 

Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2022 

Mr. ELLZEY (for himself, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. BRADY, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. 

CARTER of Texas, Mr. CRENSHAW, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. TONY

GONZALES of Texas, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. GREEN

of Texas, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. PFLUGER, Ms. VAN DUYNE, 

Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas, and Mr. JACKSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 3903 Melear Drive in Arlington, Texas, as 

the ‘‘Ron Wright Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RON WRIGHT POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 3903 Melear Drive in Arlington, 

6 Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ron Wright 

7 Post Office Building’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6626 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Ron Wright Post Of5 fice Building’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00569

- CV

Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 3 and Othal Brand, Jr. v. Kenne t h Wilkins

On Appeal from the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Cause No. C

- 1406

- 14

- G

JUDGMENT
THE THIRTEE NTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against the party incurring same.
We further o rder this decision certified below for observance. October 25, 2018
EXHIBIT
32.2




THE
PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY




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 The Penn Traffic Company (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ending August 1, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tod A.
Nestor, Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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/ Tod A. NestorTod
      A. Nestor


Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


September
15. 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Morales, Appellant.

[677 NYS2d 465]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered November 1, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of IV2 to 3 years, and imposing a mandatory surcharge, unanimously affirmed.

Procedurally, defendant’s challenge to the imposition of the surcharge should have been raised in the sentencing court by way of a motion for resentencing *(People v Rada,*160 AD2d 552). In any event, as we have previously noted on numerous occasions, defendant’s present claim is premature *(see, e.g., People v Ramirez,*208 AD2d 381, *lv denied*84 NY2d 1037). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6506 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6506

 To amend the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 to 
include the St. Lawrence River and other river systems in the scope of 
    functions of the Center of Expertise for Great Lakes Oil Spill 
           Preparedness and Response, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2022

  Ms. Stefanik (for herself and Mr. Morelle) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018 to 
include the St. Lawrence River and other river systems in the scope of 
    functions of the Center of Expertise for Great Lakes Oil Spill 
           Preparedness and Response, and for other purposes.

    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 ``St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes 
Waterways Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. CENTER OF EXPERTISE FOR GREAT LAKES OIL SPILL SEARCH AND 
              RESPONSE.

    Section 807(d) of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act 
of 2018 (14 U.S.C. 313 note(d)) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `Great Lakes' means 
Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake Huron (including Lake St. Clair), Lake 
Michigan, Lake Superior, and the connecting channels (Saint Mary's 
River, Saint Clair River, Detroit River, Niagara River, and Saint 
Lawrence River to the Canadian border).''.
                                 <all>
```
* Under 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31245 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LEONARD N. HEDRICK, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CR-10011-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - June 25, 1998 Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM: * Leonard N. Hedrick appeals the district court’s order affirming his bench trial conviction before a magistrate judge for taking and aiding and abetting others in taking migratory birds with the aid of bait in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 703 and 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(i). We have reviewed the record and Hedrick’s arguments on appeal. We find that his conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. When all the evidence is considered and the inferences that are drawn are all in favor of the verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found that Hedrick’s fieldsNo. 97-31245 -2- were not baited as part of a bona fide agricultural operation. See 50 C.F.R. § 20.21(I); United States v. Sylvester , 848 F.2d 520, 522 (5th Cir. 1988). AFFIRMED.
#### People ex rel. Loveland & Greeley Ir. & Land Co. v. District Court of Larimer County et al.

That a district court has overruled an objection to its jurisdiction of the subject-matter of an action pending before it, and is about to adjudicate the cause on the merits, will not authorize a writ of prohibition, as the objection may be examined on appeal or error.

*Application for a Writ of Prohibition.*

Petition by the Loveland & Greeley Irrigation & Land' Company for a writ of prohibition against the district court of Larimer county and the Handy Ditch Company.

*575Mr. Hugh Butler, for petitioners.

Messrs. B. L. Carr and Willard Teller, for respondents.

Per Curiam.

By the petition presented for pur consideration, it is shown that a certain civil action is pending in the district court of Larimer county; that petitioner, who is defendant in said action,'objected to proceeding therein on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter; that the court overruled this objection, and is now about to adjudicate the cause on the merits. Petitioner asks for an original writ of prohibition from this court, commanding the court below to desist from further action in the premises. Petitioner’s objection may be examined upon a review of the final judgment on appeal or error. Therefore he has an adequate remedy at law, and no sufficient ground for allowing the writ is presented. High, Extr. Bern. § 771, and citation. Were we to entertain the application in this case, we could not well refuse to do likewise in other civil actions, where a similar question of jurisdiction had been raised in the court below, and there determined in the same manner. Thus, prohibition would.be largely substituted for appeal and error as a method of reviewing rulings relating to jurisdiction. Extraordinary cases may arise where, in the exercise of that “sound discretion ” always possessed by courts in connection with the writ of prohibition, it will be allowed for the purpose of considering rulings like the one in question. Such a case was *People v. District Court,*6 Colo. 534, cited hy counsel. In that case, though the court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, petitioners had been adjudged guilty of contempt, and final judgment was about to be pronounced which might include imprisonment, and thus deprive them of their personal liberty. The petition must be denied.

*Petition denied.*
CERTIFICATION OF


CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bizzingo, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christina Domecq, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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 consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By:
/s/ Douglas TothChief Executive Officer andPrincipal Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Willow Creek Golf Club, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-22-00553-CV

Date Motion Filed: July 27, 2022

Party Filing Motion: Relator

It is ordered that relator’s request for en banc consideration is denied. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 41.2, 49.5.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Sherry Radack_______

 Acting for the En Banc Court

Date: ___August 23, 2022____

En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, 

Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.

Justice Guerra, not sitting.
* 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. 00-20394

Conference Calendar

 

MOHAMMAD MUNIR ASIF,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Executive Director, Texas Department

of Criminal Justice; MELINDA BOZARTH,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CV-1063

--------------------

December 13, 2000

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mohammad Munir Asif, Texas prisoner # 678395, challenges the

district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action under Heck

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). He first contends that because

he is challenging the defendants’ failure to release him to

mandatory supervision, rather than his actual conviction, Heck

does not apply. Heck is implicated by an action attacking the

viability of probation or parole proceedings. See McGrew v.

Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 160 (5th Cir. 1995). 
No. 00-20394

-2-

Asif also asserts that because Texas courts have routinely

overturned similar actions by the Board of Pardons and Paroles,

he has met the Heck standard. He has failed to show, however,

that his denial of mandatory supervision has been reversed,

expunged, declared invalid, or called into question. 

Consequently, the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF CASH FLOWS, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,177,205
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      4,936
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         300,545
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        11,852
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  60,280
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,554,818
<COMMON>                                       165,307
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            381,353
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 546,660
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           462,400
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 900
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 544,858
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,554,818
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      274,627
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            20,057
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     215,226
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     235,283
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         39,344
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,366
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  42,710
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        11,205
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,505
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   31,505
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        14,146
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        9,398
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                        (34,814)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
No. 72-6078.

#### Williams *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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




In
      connection with this amended Annual Report of ESCO, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-KSB/A for the year ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William T. Foley,
      Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(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 result of operations of the
      Company.




Dated: October
                6, 2008
            By:
            /s/ William
                T. FoleyWilliam
                T. Foley, President(Principal
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jose Luis Garcia VEGA, Appellant.

No. 02-1772.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 25, 2002.

Decided Nov. 6, 2002.

Before McMILLIAN, MURPHY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Jose Luis Garcia Vega pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; to one count of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture and substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and to a forfeiture count. The district court1 sentenced Vega to 135 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release, and ordered forfeiture of any interest Vega had in two vehicles. On appeal, counsel filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in denying a minimal- or minor-participant reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Vega filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that he was not informed of his right under the Vienna Convention to contact his consul; that the Attorney General changed methamphetamine from a Schedule III to a Schedule II controlled substance, placing it in conflict with 21 U.S.C. § 812, and his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum for a Schedule III drug; and that his sentence violates *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in denying Vega a role-in-the-offense reduction. Vega acknowledged knowing that there were drugs in one of the vehicles he and his coconspirators were driving, and that the three were engaged in a drug transaction; further, he stayed with the vehicle containing the drugs, while his codefendants met with the confidential informant shortly before the arrest resulting in the charges underlying Vega’s convictions. *See United States v. Ortiz,*236 F.3d 420, 422 (8th Cir.2001).

We also reject Vega’s remaining arguments. His guilty plea forecloses his Vienna Convention argument, *see United States v. Guzman-Landeros,*207 F.3d 1034, 1035 (8th Cir.2000) (per curiam); Congress has given the Attorney General authority to transfer drugs from one schedule to another regardless of the drug’s initial placement in section 812, *see*21 U.S.C. §§ 811(a)(1), 812(c); and not only did the indictment allege drug quantity, but Vega stipulated to the drug quantity and resulting base offense level that was used to calculate his sentence, *see United States v. Nguyen,*46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1995). Having reviewed the rec*329ord independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.