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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
(UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BE REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,339
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,150
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (349)
<INVENTORY>                                     19,102
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,963
<PP&E>                                          12,811
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,150)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  46,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,050
<BONDS>                                          2,490
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      31,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    46,937
<SALES>                                         78,561
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,545
<CGS>                                           55,217
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,668
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 502
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,514
<INCOME-TAX>                                       922
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,592
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,592
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        

</TABLE>
#### Molly McGROTHA, Appellant, v. Fred PEARSON, Esquire, Appellee.

No. 1D10-5744.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 14, 2011.

Richard W. Reno of the Law Office of Richard W. Reno, P.A., Crawfordville, for Appellant.

Brian S. Duffy and Charles J.F. Schreiber, Jr. of McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has sought review of a final Order Dismissing Complaint, signed by the lower tribunal judge on September 29, 2010. However, because the order has not been filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal, it has not yet been rendered and *414the appeal is premature. Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h). Accordingly, the appellee’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

WOLF, DAVIS, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 132 

To impose a criminal penalty on an alien who fails voluntarily to depart 

the United States after securing permission to do so, or who unlawfully 

returns to the United States after voluntarily departing. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. GALLEGLY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To impose a criminal penalty on an alien who fails voluntarily to depart the United States after securing permission to do so, or who unlawfully returns to the United 

States after voluntarily departing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CRIMINAL PENALTIES RELATING TO VOL4 UNTARY DEPARTURE. 

5 Section 240B(d) of the Immigration and Nationality 

6 Act (8 U.S.C. 1229c(d)) is amended— 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HR 132 IH

1 (1) in the subsection heading, by striking 

2 ‘‘CIVIL PENALTY’’ and inserting ‘‘CIVIL AND CRIMI3 NAL PENALTIES’’; 

4 (2) in paragraph (1)— 

5 (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) 

6 and (B) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respec7 tively; and 

8 (B) by inserting before subparagraph (B) 

9 (as so redesignated) the following: 

10 ‘‘(A) shall be imprisoned for a term of 

11 years not less than 1 and not more than 4 and 

12 fined in accordance with title 18, United States 

13 Code;’’; 

14 (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para15 graph (4); and 

16 (4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol17 lowing: 

18 ‘‘(3) REENTRY OF DEPARTED ALIENS.—Who19 ever is permitted to depart voluntarily under this 

20 section, and thereafter enters, attempts to enter, or 

21 is present in, the United States in violation of law 

22 shall be imprisoned for a term of years not less than 

23 1 and not more than 4 and fined in accordance with 

24 title 18, United States Code.’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 22
- 00174

- CV

DAVID MENEFEE AND BRENDA MENEFEE , Appellant s
v. THE SCOGGINS REAL ESTATE TEAM, LLC, PENNYBAGS, LLC, SCOGGINS ENTERPRISES, INC., HESSCO ROOFING & REMODELING, LLC, 1ST CHOICE FENCING, INC., JODY SCOGGINS, KIM SCOGGINS, AND DEBBIE SCOGGINS , Appellee s

From the 414th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017

- 2147

- 5

DISSENTING OPINION

My first question relates to jurisdiction. Does the fact that one of the plaintiffs is

de ce a se d (died after suit was filed) and the defendant failed to comply with Texas Rule

of Civil Procedure 151 to have a replacement designated , even if nobody mentions it,

nevertheless prevent the trial court’s judgment from being final? A nd if the defendantMenefee v. The Scoggins Real Estate Team, LLC, et al. Page 2

fa iled to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 1 51 , does that not prevent the trial

court’s dismissal for want of prosecution under other authority because there is a very specific rule about how to obtain dismissal when a plaintiff dies after the trial court obtains jurisdiction of the person that is the pl aintiff ? Does this at least warrant a “ we
question

- our jurisdiction ” inquiry? See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3. The most fundamental problem is upon whom is a motion to dismiss, or notice of intent to dismiss, for want of prosecution going to be served if the party over whom the court had jurisdiction has

died? I will also say that under the circumstances , during the pandemic where there was

t he lack of criminal prosecution of the defendant by Texas/ Mc Lennan County for such a long period of time , weighing the pitfalls that arise in trying to proceed in a civil case when the defendant has a criminal prosecution pending for the same conduct , and considering the chaos created by the burden of the 50+ emergency Covid orders upon the entire judicial system , and due to th o se emergency orders, the resulting inability to hold a jury trial in the criminal as well as the civil case (can we take judicial notice of the local

rules and emergenc y orders during the pandemic) , plus the defendant’s failure to avail

itself of the benefits and protection of Rule 151 to get to a dismissal , if appropriate, I

would find the dismissal of the plaintif fs’ case to be an abuse of discretion . I respectfully

d issent.

TOM GRAY Chief JusticeMenefee v. The Scoggins Real Estate Team, LLC, et al. Page 3

Dissenting Opinion delivered and filed May 3 1 , 2023
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano,

Justices

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.

November 4, 2014 

# Order

Nov ember 4 , 2014

149567 ( 65 )

CHABAD

- LUBAVITCH OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

,

v

DR. DOV SCHUCHMAN, KEN KOHN, DORENE

SOBCZAK, NEIL CRAFT, ANDREA

FEUEREISEN, DALE GOODMAN, LEAH RUBY,

ELIMELECH SILBERBERG, SARA TUGMAN

BAIS CHABAD TORAH, and CONREGATION

BAIS CHABAD OF WEST BLOOMFIELD

, Defendant s

- Appell ants

. SC: 149567

COA: 312037

Oakland CC: 2012

- 126333

- CH

________________________________________ __ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion for the temporary admission of L. Martin

Nussbaum to practice pro hac vice under MCR 8.126(A) is GRANTED

.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                            McLEODUSA INCORPORATED

                     COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
                 (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     Three Months Ended      Nine Months Ended
                                                                       September 30,           September 30,
                                                                   ----------------------  ----------------------
                                                                      1998        1997        1998        1997
                                                                   ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
<S>                                                                <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Computation of weighted average number of
 common shares outstanding:
Common shares, Class A, outstanding at the
 beginning of the period.........................................     62,879      52,628      61,799      36,173
Common shares, Class B, outstanding at the
 beginning of the period (A).....................................        ---         ---         ---      15,626
Weighted average number of shares issued
 during the period...............................................         76         707         821         953
                                                                    --------    --------    --------    --------
Weighted average number of common shares.........................     62,955      53,335      62,620      52,752
                                                                    ========    ========    ========    ========
Net loss.........................................................   $(33,042)   $(23,705)   $(93,100)   $(53,556)
                                                                    ========    ========    ========    ========
Loss per common share............................................   $  (0.52)   $  (0.45)   $  (1.49)     $(1.02)
                                                                    ========    ========    ========    ========
</TABLE>

(A)  The Class B common stock, $.01 par value per share is convertible on a one-
     for-one basis at any time at the option of the holder into Class A common
     stock. As of September 30, 1998, all shares of Class B common stock had
     been converted into shares of Class A common stock.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 11


                  FUSION SYSTEMS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                               EARNINGS PER SHARE
               CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED-AVERAGE SHARES OUTSTANDING
                                 (In thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Three Months Ended                Nine Months Ended
                                                           --------------------------------  -------------------------------
                                                             September 27,   September 29,    September 27,   September 29,
                                                                 1996            1995             1996            1995
                                                           ---------------- ---------------  --------------- ---------------
<S>                                                                <C>             <C>              <C>             <C>
Common Stock                                                       7,792           7,678            7,775           7,637

Options to acquire Common Stock (treasury stock method)              117             462              269             480

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

Weighted-Average Shares Outstanding                                7,909           8,140            8,044           8,117
                                                           ================ ===============  =============== ===============
</TABLE>
758 A.2d 658

#### In the Matter of Gary A. SCARZAFAVA. Petition for Reinstatement from Inactive Status.

No. 137 DB 1999.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 18, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2000, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme *133Court of Pennsylvania dated July 17, 2000, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that GARY A. SCARZAFAVA, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 145 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 145

   To amend section 1369 of title 18, United States Code, to extend 
 Federal jurisdiction over destruction of veterans' memorials on State 
                     or local government property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend section 1369 of title 18, United States Code, to extend 
 Federal jurisdiction over destruction of veterans' memorials on State 
                     or local government property.

    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 ``Protect our Veterans Memorials Act 
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--
            (1) crimes against United States military veterans' 
        memorials on public property dishonor all American servicemen 
        and women and their sacrifices for the Nation's defense; and
            (2) Federal prosecution of crimes against such veterans' 
        memorials on public property is in the national interest of 
        honoring the Nation's military veterans.

SEC. 3. FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER DESTRUCTION OF VETERANS' MEMORIALS ON 
              STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

    Section 1369(b)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``, or a State or local government'' after ``Federal 
Government''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

Calendar No. 671 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1191 

[Report No. 110–319] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

APRIL 10, 2008 

Reported by Mr. BINGAMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To authorize the National Park Service to pay for services 

rendered by subcontractors under a General Services Administration Indefinite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity Contract issued for work to be completed at the Grand 

Canyon National Park. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. 

4 As used in this Act, the following definitions apply: 

5 (1) IDIQ.—The term ‘‘IDIQ’’ means an Indefi6 nite Deliver/Indefinite Quantity contract. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1191 RS

1 (2) PARK.—The term ‘‘park’’ means Grand 

2 Canyon National Park. 

3 (3) PGI.—The term ‘‘PGI’’ means Pacific Gen4 eral, Inc. 

5 (4) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

6 the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Di7 rector of the National Park Service. 

8 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION. 

9 The Secretary is authorized, subject to the appropria10 tion of such funds as may be necessary, to pay the amount 

11 owed to the subcontractors of PGI for work performed at 

12 the park under an IDIQ with PGI between fiscal years 

13 2002 and 2003, provided that— 

14 (1) the primary contract between PGI and the 

15 National Park Service is terminated; 

16 (2) the amount owed to the subcontractors is 

17 verified; 

18 (3) all reasonable legal avenues or recourse 

19 have been exhausted by the subcontractors to recoup 

20 amounts owed directly from PGI; and 

21 (4) the subcontractors provide a written state22 ment that payment of the amount verified in para23 graph (2) represents payment in full by the United 

24 States for all work performed at the park under the 

25 IDIQ with PGI between fiscal years 2002 and 2003. 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with BILLS

smartinez on PRODPC60 with BILLS
Calendar No. 671 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1191 

[Report No. 110

–319] 

AN ACT 

To authorize the National Park Service to pay for 

Park. be completed at the Grand Canyon National Indefinite Quantity Contract issued for work to eral Services Administration Indefinite Deliver/ services rendered by subcontractors under a GenAPRIL 10, 2008 

Reported without amendment 


smartinez on PRODPC60 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      PREVENT CHANGES IN MEDICAID

  (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the House Republican budget resolution in 
my opinion is heading us toward block granting Medicaid with strict 
caps on funding provided by the Federal Government to the States. These 
proposed caps in Federal spending will reduce services to individuals 
who benefit from Medicaid. As with Medicare, I believe that Medicaid 
should be reformed, but in the context of health care reform.
  One-third of the spending for Medicaid provides benefits to senior 
citizens, especially in obtaining long-term care such as nursing home 
care. Another third of the funding assists those who are disabled or 
blind. As the program is currently structured, by the beginning of the 
next decade, every child and pregnant woman will receive health care 
services, universal coverage in effect for children. My fear is that by 
making the proposed cuts in this program, many of these people will see 
a reduction in their health care services, and may not even continue to 
receive health benefits.
  This is a very negative effect of the House Republican budget, and I 
hope that we can in Congress over the next 6 months prevent these 
changes in the Medicaid Program.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5625-H5626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                HOUSTON ROCKETS PLAYING FOR CHAMPIONSHIP

  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me take just a minute away 
from the budget cutting debate and the foreign aid debate. Tonight the 
world champion Houston Rockets will be playing in the finals with the 
Orlando Magic. I just wanted to talk about it, because this is the 
second year in a row those of us in Houston have been honored to have 
the Rockets in the world championship.
  This has been a tough year. That is why we are starting in on the 
road, even though we are world champions. We are blessed by not only a 
great basketball team but a great city in Houston.
  I was honored a couple months ago to receive an award along with 
Hakeem Olajuwon, an outstanding alumnus of the University of Houston. I 
am proud that the University of Houston is playing a part in tonight's 
world championship, because both of the Rockets' stars, Olajuwon and 
Clyde Drexler, were on the University of Houston teams in 1983 and 1984 
when they went to the NCAA championship. The Rockets are fighting to 
have a back-to-back championship. They have overcome adversity and 
injuries to become the Western Conference champions.
  I see my colleague from Phoenix. There are great teams in Phoenix and 
other western divisions. I hope they [[Page H5626]] will join us in 
trying to keep the title in the western division.

                          ____________________
```