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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               4,645
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,524,321
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (7,239,000)
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,319,133
<PP&E>                                             440,003
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (280,026)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,480,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,991,852
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          1,189
<COMMON>                                               963
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3,812,234)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,480,510
<SALES>                                             48,950
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    48,950
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   446,680
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,138,141
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  75,432
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,611,303)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,611,303)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,611,303)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.45)



</TABLE>
Case: 12-13637-BAH Doc #: 21-4 Filed: 03/29/13 Desc: Proposed Order Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2


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 Report of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the “Companies”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), I, Eric M. Markell, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies.











Date: May 4, 2010/s/Eric M. MarkellEric M. MarkellExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stephen Minor

V .

Grafton CountV Department of

Corrections, Superintendent, et al .

No . 06-fp-24 2

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERI S

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee .

This case has been assigned civil number 06-cv-242-PB .

SO ORDERED .

1 `(Q)l~ ~l9tlCY

's R . Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judg e

Date : July 18, 200 6

cc : Stephen Minor, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00242-JD Document 5 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 1 of 1
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEP ARTMENT OF REVENUE, on behalf of MARIA MURILLO
, Appellant,

v.

SAUL MURILLO
, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 4435

_____________________________/

Opinion filed May 16, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Toni C. Bernstein, Assistan t Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

No a ppearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, the Department of Revenue argues that the Administrative Law

Judge erred by concluding that the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH)

lacked subject

- matter jurisdiction to establish Appellee’s child support obligation2 because a dissolution action addressing child support was pending betwe en the

par ents in circuit court . The Department is correct. Because there was no court order

of support i n effect, and Appellee had not timely opted out of the administrative

proceeding, DOAH had concurrent jurisdiction to establish Appellee’s child suppor t
obligation and a support order should have been entered. See § 409.2563(2)(a), (c),

Fla. Stat. ( 2016) ; Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Van Edwards
, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D873a

(Fla. 1st DCA Apr. 13, 2017) ; Dep’t of Revenue v. Graczyk , 206 So. 3d 157, 161

(Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further

proceedings.

WOLF , RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICKY NATHANIEL WASHINGTON

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 150

- CR

Appeal from the

27th District Court

of Bell County, Texas

(TC# 76481 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss A ppeal and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore grant

Appellant’s m otion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal. We further order this decision be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30 TH DAY OF S EPTEMBER , 20 20

.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Crim No. 05-cr-170-01-SM 

Linda Tremblay

O R D E R

The defendant moves to reduce her sentence based upon a pending amendment to the

Federal Sentencing Guidelines regarding crack cocaine offenses (document no. 46). For the

following reasons, the defendant's motion is stayed until after the proposed effective date of the

pending guideline amendment.

On June 30, 2011, the United States Sentencing Commission determined to give

retroactive effect to the permanent guideline amendment regarding crack cocaine offenses (Parts

A and C of Amendment 750). This amendment implemented the emergency directives in section

8 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Absent congressional action to the contrary, retroactivity

of the guideline amendment becomes effective November 1, 2011, at which time sentence

reductions based on the retroactive application of the crack cocaine amendment will be

authorized. It is yet to be determined, however, whether Congress will take action on the

proposed guideline amendment. 

Thus, because the defendant is seeking a sentence reduction based upon a guideline

amendment that may or may not take effect on November 1, 2011, her motion for a sentence

reduction shall be stayed at this time. Should the guideline amendment take effect on November

Case 1:05-cr-00170-SM Document 47-1 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 2
1, 2011, the court will consider the merits of the defendant's motion after that date and will order

the government to respond if necessary. 

 So ordered.

September 13, 2011 /s/ Daniel J. Lynch

Daniel J. Lynch

U.S. Magistrate Judge

cc: Linda Tremblay, pro se

Counsel of Record 

Case 1:05-cr-00170-SM Document 47-1 Filed 09/13/11 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1298 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1298

 To provide for the expansion of human clinical trials qualifying for 
                        the orphan drug credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2001

   Mr. Brady of Texas (for himself and Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the expansion of human clinical trials qualifying for 
                        the orphan drug credit.

    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 ``Orphan Drug Tax Credit Act of 
2001''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF HUMAN CLINICAL TRIALS QUALIFYING FOR ORPHAN DRUG 
              CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Subclause (I) of section 45C(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
                                    ``(I) after the date that the 
                                application is filed for designation 
                                under such section 526, and''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Clause (i) of section 45C(b)(2)(A) of 
such Code is amended by inserting ``which is'' before ``being'' and by 
inserting before the comma at the end ``and which is designated under 
section 526 of such Act''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply to 
amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit



Exhibit 4.15



THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE
CARDINAL HEALTH 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN
FOR EMPLOYEES OF PUERTO RICO
(As Amended and Restated January 1, 2016)


Background Information


		
	A.
	Cardinal Health, Inc. (“Cardinal Health”) previously adopted and currently maintains the Cardinal Health 401(k) Savings Plan for Employees of Puerto Rico (the “Plan”) for the benefit of employees of Cardinal Health and its subsidiaries and affiliates.




		
	B.
	Section 11.02 of the Plan provides that the Plan may be amended at any time through a written resolution adopted or approved by the Financial Benefit Plans Committee (“FBPC”), with respect to any amendment that, when aggregated with any other amendment or amendments approved on the same date, is reasonably expected to have an annual financial impact on Cardinal Health of $5 million or less.




		
	C.
	The FBPC has concluded that the amendment set forth below, when aggregated with any other amendments set to be approved on the same date, is reasonably expected to have an annual financial impact on Cardinal Health of less than $5 million.




		
	D.
	The FBPC desires to amend the Plan’s definition of “Total Disability” to provide that a participant is considered totally disabled for purposes of the Plan if he or she is determined to be totally disabled under Cardinal Health’s long-term disability plan or is determined to be totally disabled by the Social Security Administration.




Amendment of the Cardinal Health 401(k) Savings Plan for Employees of Puerto Rico


The Plan is hereby amended as set forth below, effective as of April 1, 2018.


1.    Section 1.35 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“Section 1.35    Total Disability / Totally Disabled.”  Occurs when a Participant has either (a) qualified for long-term disability benefits under the Employer’s long term disability plan, or (b) been determined to be totally disabled by the Social Security Administration.”


2.    Section 8.10 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“Section 8.10    [Reserved].”


3.    All other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.









	
			
	 
	CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.
FINANCIAL BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE

	 
	By:
	/s/ Kendell F. Sherrer

	 
	Its:
	VP, Benefits

	 
	Date:
	April 2, 2018
V

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1258

For the relief of Sarabeth M. Davis, Robert S. Borders, Victor Maron,

Irving Berke, and Adele E. Conrad.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mr. COX introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Sarabeth M. Davis, Robert S. Borders,

Victor Maron, Irving Berke, and Adele E. Conrad.

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

3 SECTION 1. COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY

4 STUDY.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury

6 shall pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise

7 appropriated, $lllllll to the persons named in

8 subsection (b) for damages sustained by such persons in

9 connection with the air installation compatible use zone

10 study conducted by the Secretary of the Army with respect
2

•HR 1258 IH

1 to Los Alamitos Army Airfield under part 256 of title 32,

2 Code of Federal Regulations.

3 (b) PERSONS TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION.—The

4 Secretary of the Treasury shall compensate the following

5 persons under subsection (a):

6 (1) Sarabeth M. Davis of Clinton, Washington.

7 (2) Robert S. Borders of Newport Beach, Cali8 fornia.

9 (3) Victor Maron of Long Beach, California.

10 (4) Irving Berke of Long Beach, California.

11 (5) Adele E. Conrad of Cypress, California.

12 SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED

13 STATES.

14 Payment under section 1 shall constitute full settle15 ment of all legal and equitable claims by the persons

16 named in section 1(b) against the United States for the

17 damages described in section 1(a).

18 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEY AND AGENT FEES.

19 Not more than 10 percent of the payment made

20 under section 1 may be paid to or received by an agent

21 or attorney as consideration for any service rendered in

22 connection with this Act. Each violation of this section

23 shall be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more

24 than $1,000.

Æ
Exhibit 99

    Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



	In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pittsburgh & West Virginia
        Railroad (the "Company") on Form 10 - Q for the fiscal quarter ending
        September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned herby
        certify, 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.


Dated:  November 3, 2008               /s/ Herbert E. Jones, Jr.
                                       Herbert E. Jones, Jr.
                                       Chairman of the Board



Dated:  November 3, 2008               /s/ Herbert E. Jones, III
                                       Herbert E. Jones, III
                                       President



Dated:  November 3, 2008               /s/ Robert R. McCoy
                                       Robert R. McCoy
                                       Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer
#### Charles M. WARNICK et al. v. LOUISIANA HIGHWAY COMMISSION.

No. 2295.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 19, 1941.

Arthur B. Hammond and Tom M. Hayes, Jr., both of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Ellis, Ellis & Barranger, of Covington,-Talley & Talley, of Bogalusa, and Pugh, Lanier & Pugh, of Thibodaux, for appel-lees.

DORE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the consolidated cases of Charles M. Warnick and others v. Louisiana Highway Commission, 4 So.2d 607, this day handed down, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3248

___________________________

Zarahi Quinilla-De La Cruz; Jeroboam Quixan-Quinilla

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioners

v.

William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

 ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

 ____________

Submitted: November 27, 2019 

Filed: December 4, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, WOLLMAN, KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Zarahi Quinilla-De La Cruz, individually and on behalf of

her minor son Jeroboam Quixan-Quinilla, petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed her appeal from the decision of an
immigration judge (IJ) denying her asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1

We conclude thatsubstantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Quinilla-De La Cruz was not entitled to asylum because she did not establish past

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected

ground. See Mayorga-Rosa v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 379, 381 (8th Cir. 2018) (asylum

requirements); Garcia-Milian v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard

of review). Substantial evidence also supportsthe agency’s conclusion that QuinillaDe La Cruz was not eligible for withholding of removal and CAT relief. See Martin

Martin v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1141, 1145 (8th Cir. 2019) (under the CAT, alien mustshow

severe pain or suffering inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or

acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity); Guled

v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 881-82 (8th Cir. 2008) (alien who does not meet standard

for asylum cannot meet more rigorous clear probability standard for withholding of

removal). 

The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1The derivative application Quinilla-De La Cruz brought on behalf of her son

sought asylumonly. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A) (child also may be granted asylum

if accompanying principal alien was granted asylum). Because Quixan-Quinilla’s

asylum application is derivative of his mother’s, all subsequent references are to

Quinilla-De La Cruz. 

-2-
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF


THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this report on Form 10-Q for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.





Steven J. Johnston, the chief executive officer, and Michael J. Sewell, the chief financial officer, of Cincinnati Financial Corporation each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:


1. the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and


2. the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cincinnati Financial Corporation.





Date: July 27, 2020





/S/ Steven J. JohnstonSteven J. Johnston, FCAS, MAAA, CFA, CERAPresident and Chief Executive Officer/S/ Michael J. SewellMichael J. Sewell, CPAChief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer(Principal Accounting Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnulfo SAUCEDO-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-20095.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Arnulfo Saucedo-Perez • appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry *413into the United States following an aggravated felony conviction in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first time on appeal, Saucedo-Perez argues that the sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) *&*(2) are unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).

Saucedo-Perez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. *Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Ddbeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). Saucedo-Perez’s argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *413the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

EZEKIYAL WELLS,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

RALSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant.

8:23CV226

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the court after a review of the docket.

Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants, Ralston Public Schools and Thomas 

Earhart, on May 26, 2023. (Filing No. 1). Both Defendants filed Rule 12(b) motions to dismiss 

Plaintiff’s claims. (Filing No. 8; Filing No. 13). On September 28, 2023, the Court entered a 

Memorandum and Order (Filing No. 18) granting Defendant Earhart’s motion to dismiss, but

denying Defendant Ralston Public Schools’ motion to dismiss “to allow Plaintiff to amend his 

complaint to include damages that are cognizable under Title VI.” The Court clarified “that the 

only issue left remaining in this case is the Title VI claim against the Ralston School District.” 

The Court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 14-days of the order. 

More than 14-days have passed since the Court entered its order, and Plaintiff has not filed 

an amended complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this district’s local rules 

contemplate dismissal of a case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to 

comply with orders of the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (providing that an action may be 

involuntarily dismissed “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court 

order”); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (stating the district court possesses 

the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). The Court required Plaintiff to amend his

complaint to include cognizable damages as to the only remaining claim, but he failed to do so. 

Under the circumstances, Plaintiffs must make a showing of good cause for his failure to comply 

with the Court’s order and failure to prosecute his case, or the action must be dismissed. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: On or before November 6, 2023, Plaintiff must show cause why this 

case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s order and failure prosecute, or 

take some other appropriate action.

8:23-cv-00226-JFB-MDN Doc # 19 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 94
2

Dated this 16th day of October, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cv-00226-JFB-MDN Doc # 19 Filed: 10/16/23 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 95