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

<ARTICLE>               5
<LEGEND>
                        This schedule contains summary financial
                        information extracted from the Liquidating Trust's
                        statement of net assets in liquidation at March 31,
                        1999 and the Liquidating Trust's statement of
                        changes in net assets in liquidation for the three
                        months ended March 31, 1999, and is qualified in
                        its entirety by reference to such financial
                        statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000
       
<S>                                                   <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<CASH>                                            129,407
<SECURITIES>                                      100,123
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    229,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              39,854
<BONDS>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        189,676
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      229,530
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    1,522
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     4,963
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 4,963
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                        4,963
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .09
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 3, 2024

No. 04-23-00439-CR

EX PARTE Julio GONZALEZ-RAMIREZ

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13223CR

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS Julio GonzalezRamirez’s appeal of the denial of his application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus for want of 

jurisdiction. We further consider Gonzalez-Ramirez’s appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus 

and DENY his request for mandamus relief WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on July 3, 2024.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of July, 2024.

_____________________________

Luz Estrada, Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF

THE UNITED STATES CODE

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Rewards Network Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald L. Blake, President and Chief Executive 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

August 11, 2008



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ RONALD L. BLAKE                  
|Ronald L. Blake                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer



37
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40090 Summary Calendar

RICHARD R. OPIO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus K. JANUARY ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CV-726

- - - - - - - - - - October 19, 1998 Before DAVIS, DUHE’ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Richard Opio, Texas prisoner #593560, challenges the dismissal of his pro se prisoner’s civil rights action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Opio alleges, inter alia, that the district court erred in concluding that he had no protected liberty interest in his good-time credits and in remaining in the general population. He further contends that his right to due process was violated when he was not permittedNo. 98-40090 -2- to attend his own disciplinary board hearing or to call witnesses on his own behalf. The district court did not err in concluding that Opio has no protected liberty interest in his good-time credits or in remaining in the prison’s general population. See Madison v. Parker , 104 F.3d 765, 768-69 (5th Cir. 1997). Opio’s claim that he was not permitted to attend his disciplinary hearing is unavailing because he has not demonstrated that prison officials were obligated to permit him to attend the hearing in light of his disruptive behavior. See Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 564-65 (1974). Finally, no hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179, 179-180 (5th Cir. 1985) was required in this case because Opio was given the opportunity to, and did, file a more definite statement of his claims. See Eason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). We do not consider the remainder of Opio’s points because they are either inadequately briefed or are raised for the first time on appeal and do not amount to plain error. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Accordingly, Opio’s appeal is dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2. His motion for summary judgment, jury trial, and an injunction is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6427 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6427

   To amend the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act to modify the 
   boundary of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 2022

   Mr. Johnson of Louisiana introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act to modify the 
   boundary of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge, 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 ``Red River National Wildlife Refuge 
Boundary Modification Act''.

SEC. 2. RED RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.

    Section 3(a)(1) of the Red River National Wildlife Refuge Act 
(Public Law 106-300; 114 Stat. 1055) is amended by striking ``map 
entitled `Red River National Wildlife Refuge--Selection Area', dated 
September 5, 2000'' and inserting ``map entitled `Red River National 
Wildlife Refuge Acquisition Boundary' and dated November 17, 2021''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0471-23

JOHN PAUL CRUMLEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

COLLIN COUNTY

NEWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion in which HERVEY,

RICHARDSON and WALKER, JJ., joined.

I agree with the Court’s conclusion that Appellant did not 

sufficiently establish that his autism rebutted the State’s evidence of the 

requisite mens rea for the offense.1 That is not to say, however, that

1 Ruffin v. State, 270 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holding “both lay and expert 

testimony of a mental disease or defect that directly rebuts the particular mens rea necessary 
Crumley Concurring — 2

evidence of autism, including the type of autism attributed to Appellant, 

could never rebut the requisite mens rea for this or other offenses. It 

is enough to say that in this case, the Appellant never proffered 

testimony explaining how autism could have caused him to misperceive 

the age of the person he was communicating with. Without such 

testimony, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the 

evidence of Appellant’s autism. To the extent that the Court goes 

further than that, I do not join that aspect of the opinion.

With these thoughts, I concur.

Filed: August 21, 2024

Publish

for the charged offense is relevant and admissible unless excluded under a specific evidentiary 

rule”).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         6,313
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    37,953
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               53,538
<PP&E>                                         9,790
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3,165
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 70,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,305
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       204
<OTHER-SE>                                     24,188
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   70,417
<SALES>                                        49,154
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               53,936
<CGS>                                          39,676
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  54,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,203
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,275)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   484
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (791)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.08)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 12


       COMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

              For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2001

                      (Dollar Amounts in Thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                           Potomac
                                                           Edison

<S>                                                     <C>
      Earnings:
            Net income                                  $  19,195
            Plus:  Fixed charges (see below)                9,649
                Income taxes                                8,273

            Total Earnings                              $  37,117


      Fixed Charges:
            Interest on long-term debt                  $   8,166
            Other interest                                    775
            Estimated interest
              component of rentals                            708

            Total Fixed Charges                         $   9,649


            Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges               3.85

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6768 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6768

 To amend the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to 
           reauthorize the First Responder Network Authority.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 18, 2022

 Mrs. Demings (for herself and Mrs. Fletcher) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to 
           reauthorize the First Responder Network Authority.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF FIRST RESPONDER NETWORK AUTHORITY.

    Section 6206 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 
2012 (47 U.S.C. 1426) is amended by striking subsections (f) and (g).
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 172 (Thursday, September 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 51639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20434]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the 
Macromolecular Structure and Function B Study Section, October 6, 2008, 
8 a.m. to October 7, 2008, 6 p.m., Melrose Hotel, 2430 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20037 which was published in the Federal 
Register on August 21, 2008, 73 FR 49465-49467.
    The meeting will be held one day only October 6, 2008. The meeting 
time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: August 27, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-20434 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Hilltop Village Cooperative #3 Inc., Appellant, v Anne Greenblatt, Respondent.

In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant is not entitled to sublet a certain cooperative apartment and directing that she be directed to offer the shares of stock allocated to that apartment for sale to the plaintiff, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.), dated February 6, 1989, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The proponent of a summary judgment motion must set forth prima facie evidence sufficient to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case. Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers *(Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851, 853; *see also, Narciso v Ford Motor Co.,*137 AD2d 508).

*356We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff corporation is not entitled to summary judgment, as its motion papers did not establish prima facie that the defendant improperly sublet her apartment. Thompson, J. P., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### David Aharanwa, Respondent, v Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York et al., Appellants.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.), entered on November 30, 1988, September 28, 1989 and October 30, 1989, respectively, which, *inter alia,*denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and pursuant to CPLR 3212, only insofar as the complaint alleged a claim for breach of an employment contract, and which granted plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that New York does not recognize a cause of action for breach of an at-will employment contract, absent an express agreement limiting the employer’s otherwise unfettered right to terminate the employment. *(Sabetay v Sterling Drug,*69 NY2d 329, 333; *Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp.,*58 NY2d 293, 300; *Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc.,*57 NY2d 458, 465.)

Here, contrary to defendants’ assertions, the IAS court did not err in determining that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a contractual limitation on defendants’ right to terminate his at-will employment based upon policy numbers 113 and 113.3 of the Columbia Personnel Policy Manual, which provided that "officers of administration” would not be terminated except for "cause”, as well as policy guidelines for termination of employment. Moreover, any conflict between these provisions and the disclaimer in the introduction cannot be resolved as a matter of law.

*9Similarly, the IAS court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants dismissing that portion of the complaint setting forth a tort cause of action for wrongful termination of employment since New York does not recognize a cause of action in tort for abusive or wrongful discharge. *(D'Avino v Trachtenburg,*149 AD2d 401, 403.)

The IAS court did not abuse its discretion nor were the defendants prejudiced by the amendment of the complaint to add facts in support of plaintiff’s claim for breach of an employment contract. *(Fahey v County of Ontario,*44 NY2d 934; *D’Onofrio v St. Joseph’s Hosp. Health Center,*101 AD2d 686.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Smith, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                         1,870,966
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,007,842
<ALLOWANCES>                                   15,000
<INVENTORY>                                    29,317,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               36,677,420
<PP&E>                                         5,964,743
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,626,983
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 43,339,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,459,756
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       202,387
<OTHER-SE>                                     24,599,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   43,339,918
<SALES>                                        32,830,821
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               37,410,990
<CGS>                                          21,816,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  35,292,011
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             223,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,004,012
<INCOME-TAX>                                   761,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,242,512
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .12
        


</TABLE>