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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from Ocwen Asset Investment
Corp's consolidated statement of financial condition and statement of operations
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK>                           0001033643
<NAME>                        Ocwen Asset Investment Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1
<CASH>                         220,021,903<F1>
<SECURITIES>                    58,545,498
<RECEIVABLES>                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                             0
<INVENTORY>                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         0
<PP&E>                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 288,308,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              776,846
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                           191,250
<OTHER-SE>                     287,340,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   288,308,879
<SALES>                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 2,482,807<F2>
<CGS>                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      388,921<F3>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    33,662
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                     2,060,224
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                     2,060,224
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          .11<F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                          .11<F5>

<FN>
<F1>  Tag 11  includes  Cash and  Amounts due from  depository  institutions  of
      $503,606   Interest-earning   Deposits  of  $19,518,297,   and  Repurchase
      Agreements of $200,000,000.
<F2>  Tag 28 includes  Interest  income on  Repurchase  agreements  and Interest
      earning  deposits  of  $1,397,128,   Securities   Available  For  Sale  of
      $1,005,184, and Discount Loans of $80,495.
<F3>  Tag 30 includes Management Fees of $341,000 and Loan expenses of $47,921.
<F4>  Tag 41  EPS-Primary  has been  restated in  accordance  with SFAS No. 128,
      "Earnings per Share."
<F5>  Tag 42  EPS-Diluted  has been  restated in  accordance  with SFAS No. 128,
      "Earnings per Share."
</FN>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S.DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          25,964
<SECURITIES>                                    38,299
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,307
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,286
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,211
<PP&E>                                          19,653
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,331
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,125
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   102,239
<SALES>                                         50,393
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,700
<CGS>                                            2,547
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,572
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   761
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  24
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,127
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,557
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.15
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 141 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 141

 To direct the Secretary of Labor to revise regulations concerning the 
 recording and reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses under 
            the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Labor to revise regulations concerning the 
 recording and reporting of occupational injuries and illnesses under 
            the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.

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

SECTION 1. RECORDING AND REPORTING OF OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND 
              ILLNESSES.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall revise the 
regulations in part 1904 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, 
concerning the recording and reporting of occupational injuries and 
illnesses under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 
U.S.C. 651 et seq.), to require site-controlling employers to keep a 
site log for all recordable injuries and illnesses occurring among all 
employees on the particular site, whether such employees are employed 
directly by the site-controlling employer or are employed by 
contractors or temporary help or employee leasing services.
    (b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``site-
controlling employer'' means the employer that has primary control over 
the work on a particular work site and supervises the employees on a 
day-to-day basis on a particular work site.
                                 <all>
```
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20261

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

DAVID GEORGE,

 DefendantAppellant.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-98-ALL

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David George pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with conspiracy to possessstolen

mail and to commit mail fraud and identity fraud, nine counts of mail fraud affecting a financial
 

 

**

George contended in his original brief that the district court erred in refusing to suppress evidence

seized during a search of his residence, pursuant to a warrant that was issued on an inadequate

affidavit of probable cause. George concedes in his reply brief that he waived this issue

by pleading guilty. See United States v. Jessup, 305 F.3d 300, 301 (5th Cir. 2002). 

-2-

institution, one count of possession of stolen mail matter, and aiding and abetting the substantive

counts. George has appealed his sentence.** 

George contendsthat the district court erred inincreasing his offense levelbecause the offense

involved more than 50 victims. The adjustment was appropriate under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment.

(n.3(B)) (2002). 

George contends that the district court erred in determining the amount of the loss. The

district court’s finding regarding the intended loss with respect to the unused pre-approved credit

card applications was not clearly erroneous and was not unreasonablydetermined. See United States

v. Saacks, 131 F.3d 540, 542-43 (5th Cir. 1997); U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, comment. (n.2(C)) (2002). It

was sufficient that the financial institutions were put at risk of sustaining a loss. See United States

v. Sowels, 998 F.2d 249, 251 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court did not clearly err in determining

the actual and intended loss. See Saacks, 131 F.3d at 542-43. 

George contends that his sentence was imposed illegally and that the Sentencing Guidelines

are unconstitutional, in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and Blakely v.

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We review this issue for plain error. By determining facts

related to the victim-related adjustment and the amount ofthe loss, the district court committed clear

or obvious errors under the rule in Booker. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520–21 (5th

Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). George has not shown,

however, that the errors affected his substantial rights. See id. at 521. 
 

 

-3-

The judgment is AFFIRMED.
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 5

- 00 221

- C V



### ____________________

TOM HAMPTON AND CONNIE HAMPTON D/B/A BAR H COUNTRY

STORE & BAR

- B

- QUE

, Appellant s

V.

PETROTEX FUELS, INC. , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 60th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. B

- 181,869

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant s

, Tom Hampton and Connie Hampton d/b/a Bar H Country

Store & Bar

- B

- Que , filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is

voluntarily made by the appellant s prior to any decision of this Court. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party filed notice of appeal. We grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal.2 APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on August 26, 2015

Opinion Delivered August 27, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated statement of operations and consolidated balance sheet and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000919957
<NAME> COMCAST UK CABLE PARTNERS LTD
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U. K. POUNDS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1.6395
<CASH>                                          67,134
<SECURITIES>                                    33,957
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,789
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,643)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               109,129
<PP&E>                                         250,513
<DEPRECIATION>                                (18,006)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 476,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,083
<BONDS>                                        216,835
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           501
<OTHER-SE>                                     217,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   476,610
<SALES>                                         12,118
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,351
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (18,894)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (5,152)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,051)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,540)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,540)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,540)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.41)
        

</TABLE>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 22, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00222-CV

IN RE CITY OF DALLAS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-00776-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Osborne

Relator’s April 7, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus challenges the trial 

court’s order compelling relator to produce the personal cell phone records of one of 

its employees. In its October 20, 2021 motion to dismiss the original proceeding, 

relator advises us that there is no longer a dispute over the production of the personal 

cell records at issue because the parties have reached settlement and the trial court 

has signed a final order dismissing real party in interest’s claims with prejudice. 

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the petition. See In re Evans, 581 

S.W.3d 431, 434 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, orig. proceeding) (dismissing 
–2–

petition for writ of mandamus because matter had become moot). We also lift the 

stay issued by our April 8, 2021 order.

210222f.p05 /Leslie Osborne/

LESLIE OSBORNE

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          17,285
<SECURITIES>                                    38,692
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,200
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,495
<PP&E>                                          17,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,228
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,605
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,656
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,987
<SALES>                                         24,395
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,349
<CGS>                                            1,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,449
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   198
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,259
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,737
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 93
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,478)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.25)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Manuel PLAISANCE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0446.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Plaisance, Manuel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 93-1563; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 08-WR-976.

Denied.
583 A.2d 301

#### IN RE THE VINEYARDS AT HOLMDEL.

January 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 5D 2 3

- 87 LT Case No. 16

- 2018

- CF

- 008153AXXX

- MA

_____________________________
L ENARD A. C RUMEDY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. London M. Kite , Judge

. Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and M egan Long, Special Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

A shley Moody, Attorney General, and Zachary F. Law t on, Assistant Attor ney G eneral , Tallahassee, for Appellee.

January 23, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.

E ISNAUGLE , B OATWRIGHT , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Theodore R. MOORE.

No. 2011-KO-1260.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Moore, Theodore R.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 06-F3340-2; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,252-KA.

Denied.

CLARK, J., recused.
## T RIAL 

## C OURT 

## O FFICIAL 

## ’ S



## R EQUEST FOR 

## E XTENSION OF 

## T IME TO 

## F ILE 

## R ECORD

Fax to Cathy S. Lusk, 12 th Court of Appeals, Tyler, TX. Fax # (903) 593-2193

Court of Appeals No. (If Known): 12-15-00113-CV

Trial Court Style: JASON ROWELL VS FIRETROL PROTECTION SYSTEMS

Trial Court & County: 114TH Smith

Tria l Court No.: 15-0581-B

Date Trial Clerk’s Record Originally Due: 05-09-15

Date Court Reporter’s/Recorder’s Record Originally Due: 05-09-15

Anticipated Number of Pages of Record: 150

I am responsible for preparing a record in this appeal but I am unable to file the record by the original

due date for the follo wing reason(s): ( check all that apply – attach additional pages if necessary)

To the best of my knowledge, the Appellant has made no claim of indigence and has failed to

either pay the required fee or to make arr angements to pay the fee fo r preparing the record.

My duties listed below preclude working on this record:

x Other, ( Explain) : I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A DESIGNAT ION OF RECORD NOR PAYMENT FOR THE CLERK’S

RECORD. THERE IS NOT A SIGNED JUDGMENT PER COURT CO ORDINATOR LORI FARMER.

I anticipate this record will be completed and forwarded to the 12 th Court of Appeals by 06-12-15,

And I hereby request an additional 30 days within which to prepare the record.

T EX .R.A PP .P.37.3.

In compliance with T EX .R.A PP .P.9.5(e), I certify that a copy of th is notice has been served on counsel

for all parties to the Trial Court’s judgment or or der being appealed. I further certify by my signature

below that the information contained in this notice is true and within my personal knowledge.

Date: 05-12-15 /S/ LINDA RHYMES

/S/ LINDA RHYMES

Office Phone Number: 903-590-1677 Linda Rhymes

(Printed Name)

DEPUTY

(Official Title)

T EXAS R ULE OF A PPELLATE P ROCEDURE 9.5(e) reads:Certificate requirements: A certificate of service must be signed by the person who made

the service and must state:

(1) the date and manner of service;

(2) the name and address of each person served; and

(3) if the person served is a party’s attorney , the name of the party represented by that

attorney.

The following parties have been served with a copy of this document:

Lead Counsel for A PPELLANT ( S ): Lead Counsel for A PPELLEE ( S ):

Name: NILES ILLICH PH.D, J.D. Name: ROGER ANDERSON

Address: LAW OFFICE OF NILES ILLI CH Address: 613 SHELLEY PARK PLAZA

701 COMMERCE #400 TYLER, TEXAS 75701

DALLAS,TEXAS 75202

Phone #: 972-802-1788 Phone #: 903-581-8600 FAX 903-581-8790

972-236-0088

Attorney For: JASON ROWELL Attor ney For: FIRETROL PROTECTION SYS.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 64 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 64

  Expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or 
    reduced for American troops in the field which would result in 
 undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned 
                               missions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2007

  Mr. Pence submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Expressing the sense of Congress that no funds should be cut off or 
    reduced for American troops in the field which would result in 
 undermining their safety or their ability to complete their assigned 
                               missions.

Whereas under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, 
        the President is the ``commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the 
        United States'', and in such capacity the President has the command of 
        the Armed Forces, including the authority to deploy troops and direct 
        military campaigns during wartime;
Whereas under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, 
        Congress has the power of the purse specifically as it relates to the 
        Armed Forces, and in such capacity Congress has the responsibility to 
        fully and adequately provide funding for United States military forces, 
        especially when they are at war and are defending the Nation; and
Whereas when United States military forces are in harm's way and are protecting 
        our country, Congress and the Nation should give them all the support 
        they need in order to maintain their safety and accomplish their 
        assigned missions, including the equipment, logistics, and funding 
        necessary to ensure their safety and effectiveness, and such support is 
        the responsibility of both the Executive Branch and the Legislative 
        Branch of Government: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any 
action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, 
including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the 
field, as such action with respect to funding would undermine their 
safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.
                                 <all>
```