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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       31632
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                27417
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            179609
<PP&E>                                     4376239
<DEPRECIATION>                             2488340
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             2140855
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       475449
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     81195
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                  43168
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               1523403
<SALES>                                    2140855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             46376
<CGS>                                        20652
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               172091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           22674
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (122326)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (122326)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                  (122326)
<NET-INCOME>                               (122326)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.02)


</TABLE>
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1734 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland, Oregon, as the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post 

Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1734 EH

1 SECTION 1. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. POST OFFICE. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Av4 enue in Portland, Oregon, shall be known and designated 

5 as the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther 

10 King, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 3, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1734 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostLuther King, Jr. Post Office’’. Avenue in Portland, Oregon, as the ‘‘Dr. Martin al Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth
#### Wenzel BELGRAM and Gayle Belgram, Appellants, v. Scott KRUEGER and Cynthia Krueger, Appellees.

No. 5D09-1629.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Oct. 15, 2010.

Cesery L. Bullard, of Bullard Law, Orlando, for Appellant.

Cynthia Krueger and Scott Krueger, Belmont, pro se Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We conclude, as the trial court did, that the escrow agreement entered into by the parties was clear and unambiguous. *See Abis v. Tudin, D.V.M., P.A.,*18 So.3d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (whether ambiguity exists is question of law). Based on the undisputed facts in the record, Appellees were entitled to summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

LAWSON, EVANDER, and COHEN, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7319 Received in Senate (RDS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7319

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 21, 2018

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 to provide 
   flexibility with respect to the leaseback of certain Federal real 
                   property, 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. LEASEBACK RESTRICTION.

    Section 12(b)(4) of the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 
2016 (40 U.S.C. 1303 note; Public Law 114-287) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``for a period of greater than 3 years'' 
        before the period at the end;
            (2) by striking ``None of the'' and inserting the 
        following:
                    ``(A) In general.--None of the''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Requirements.--A leaseback under this 
                paragraph--
                            ``(i) shall expire on or before the last 
                        day of the 3-year period beginning on the date 
                        of the sale of the respective property;
                            ``(ii) may not contain any options to 
                        extend or renew the leaseback;
                            ``(iii) may only be entered into once for 
                        purposes of temporarily housing the Federal 
                        agency in the property at the time of the sale; 
                        and
                            ``(iv) shall only be for the purpose of 
                        facilitating the sale of the respective 
                        property.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 21, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
649 A.2d 624

#### IN THE MATTER OF PAUL C. CAVALIERE, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

November 28, 1994.

ORDER

PAUL C. CAVALIERE, JR., of WAYNE, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1956, and who was temporarily suspended from the practice of law by Order of this Court dated January 30, 1991, and who remains suspended at this time, having tendered his *168consent to disbarment as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that PAUL C. CAVALIERE, JR., is disbarred by consent, effective immediately; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent’s name be stricken from the roll of attorneys and that he be permanently restrained and enjoined from practicing law; and it is further

ORDERED that all funds, if any, currently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by PAUL C. CAVALI-ERE, JR., pursuant to *Rule*1:21-6, shall be restrained from disbursement except upon application to this Court, for good cause shown, and shall be transferred by the financial institution to the Clerk of the Superior Court, who is directed to deposit the funds in the Superior Court Trust Fund, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with disbarred attorneys.
Order filed December 1 7 , 2020.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00207

- CV

____________ WHITE STAR PUMP COMPANY, LLC , Appellant

V.
ALPHA HUNTER DRILLING, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harr i s County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2014

- 57416



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due April 14, 2020

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. On August 20, 2020, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 30 days. On September 18, 2 020 , the court reporter filed a motion requesting an additional 30 days to file the reporter ’ s record, in that motion she
stated it would be her fi nal extension. We granted her motion and stated that no
fur ther exceptions would be granted absent exceptiona l ci rcumstances. As oftoday, t he record has n ot been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record

has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Amanda King , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 1 5 days of the date of this order

. No further extension will be entertained absent exceptional circumstances. If Amanda King does not timely file the record as ordered, we will issue a show cause order directing the court reporter to appear before this co urt on a date certain to show cause why the reporter should not be held in contempt for failing to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine and/or confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justice s Bourliot, Zimm erer, and Spain.
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.

December 10, 2014 

# Order

December 10, 2014

150099 & ( 20 )

SELECT PRODUCTS LIMITED

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

,

v

RANDY W. LINN and LINN PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendant s

- Appell ants

. SC: 150099

COA: 320503

Kalamazoo CC: 2012

- 000486

- CB

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation to dismiss the application for leave to

appeal is GRANTED. The dismissal is with prejudice and without fees or costs to either

party.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Metro One Telecommunications, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ending March 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Timothy A. Timmins,Chief Executive Officer, and Dale N. Wahl, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| May 15, 2003 | /s/  Timothy A. Timmins |   |
|--------------|------------------------------|--------|
|         | Timothy A.  Timmins          |
|         | President,  Chief Executive  |
|         | Officer and  Director        |
|         |                         |
|         |                         |
|         | /s/  Dale N. Wahl       |   |
|         | Dale N. Wahl                 |
|         | Senior Vice  President,      |
|         | Chief  Financial Officer     |

 

1

----
#### W. G. Sexton v. E. W. Hindman.

(No. 1860.)

Error from Rusk County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 462. *Replevy bond in distress warrant proceeding; is valid and binding, though the affidavit and bond for distress warrant be invalid.*Sexton was Hindman’s landlord, and brought this suit against him to recover rent and advances, obtaining, and causing to be levied upon Hindman’s horse, a distress warrant. Hindman replevied the horse by giving bond as provided in such cases. The distress warrant proceeding was quashed, because the affidavit and bond, therefor were defective. Sexton recovered judgment against Hindman for his debt, but the court refused to render judgment against the sureties upon Hindman’s replevy bond. *Held:*In the case of a replevy bond given in a sequestration suit, wherein the sequestration bond was invalid, it was held by this court that the replevy bond given in said suit was also invalid, and would not support a judgment against the sureties thereon. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 787.] It is to be observed, however, that the statutory conditions of a replevy bond in a sequestration suit ai’e essentially different from those of such a bond in a proceeding by distress warrant. In the former case, when the property is personal, the bond is conditioned that the defendant will not remove the property out of the county, etc., and will have the same, with the value of the fruits, revenue, etc., forthcoming to abide the decision of the court, etc. [R. S. art. 4499.] In the latter case, the condition of the bond is that, if the defendant be cast in the action, he shall satisfy the judgment that may be rendered against him, or pay the estimated value of the *406property, etc. [R. S. art. 3116.] The decision above cited is not, therefore, applicable to the question presented in this case. There the condition of the bond was for the forthcoming of the property, or its value. Here the bond is an absolute, unconditional obligation to satisfy the judgment that may be rendered against the defendant. It is expressly provided that, “ when final judgment shall be rendered against the defendant, such judgment shall be also against him and his sureties on his replevy bond for the amount of the judgment, interest and costs, or for the value of the property replevied and interest, according to the terms of such bond.” [R. S. art. 3117.] Articles 3116 and 3117 are provisions introduced by the revisers. They plainly make the replevy bond in this proceeding an unconditional obligation to pay the judgment, etc., which obligation is no way dependent upon the validity of the distress warrant proceeding. The bond takes the place of the property levied upon, and releases 'that property not only from the levy but from the landlord’s lien. The plaintiff can no longer look to the property for his debt, but must rely upon the bond instead. The judgment is reversed, and here rendered against Hindman and the sureties upon his replevy bond, as it should have been rendered in the court below.

November 26, 1884.

Reversed and rendered.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Western Ohio Financial
Corporation (the "Company") for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Richard K. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 result of
                operations of the Company.



By:  /s/ Richard K. Smith
Name:  Richard K. Smith
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or another
document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
Staff upon request.

                                      26.
#### Aisha VAN DYKE, Appellant, v. MATRIX EMPLOYEE LEASING and FWCIGA/First Commercial Insurance Company or FCIC c/o USIS, Appellees.

No. 1D09-1393.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 2, 2011.

*643C. James McCall of McCall & Erler, P.A., Jacksonville, and David A. McCranie of David A. McCranie, P.A., Orange Park, for Appellant.

Kristin J. Longberry of Alvarez, Sambol & Winthrop, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

In this workers’ compensation appeal, Claimant challenges an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) which denies her claims for temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits and for the authorization of medical care. Because the order on appeal fails to demonstrate that the JCC, who did not have the benefit of our recent decision in *Wyeth/Pharma Field Sales v. Toscano,*40 So.3d 795, 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), utilized the appropriate legal standards in evaluating Claimant’s entitlement to TPD benefits from November 2, 2004, through February 28, 2005, we reverse and remand the JCC’s denial of TPD benefits for this period (along with the claims for penalties, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees pertaining to this issue) for additional proceedings. *See id.; see also Alie v. Crum Staffing, Inc.,*41 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); *Matthews v. Nat’l Pump Compressor,*41 So.3d 982 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). We affirm the JCC’s denial of the remainder of compensation benefits at issue, because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding that Claimant no longer had work restrictions as of March 1, 2005. See § 440.15(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008) (stating TPD payable where medical conditions create restrictions on employee’s ability to return to work). Further, we affirm the JCC’s denial of the claim for authorization of a doctor, because competent substantial evidence supports the JCC’s finding's that Claimant failed to establish the medical necessity of this care. *See Laxner v. Target Corp.,*41 So.3d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND the JCC’s denial of TPD benefits from November 2, 2004, through February 28, 2005, for additional proceedings, and AFFIRM the remainder of the order on appeal.

VAN NORTWICK, THOMAS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
No. 13,571.

#### Behler et al. *v.*The Town of Garrett.

Filed March 28, 1889.

From the DeKalb Circuit Court.

*W. L. Penfield,*for appellants.

*E. D. Hartman*and *L. Covell,*for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

The decision of this case is controlled by the judgment in *Wagner*v. *Town of Garrett, ante,*p. 114. The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
#### In re Elizabeth A. SPURGEON.

No. 2010-OB-2299.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 15, 2010.

ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR

PER CURIAM.*

After reviewing the evidence and considering the law, we conclude petitioner, Elizabeth A. Spurgeon, is immediately eligible to be conditionally admitted to the practice of law in Louisiana, subject to a probationary period of two years. The probationary period shall commence from the date petitioner, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the probation monitor execute a formal probation plan. During the probationary period, petitioner shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of the consent agreement executed by her with the Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, and such other conditions as may be imposed upon her by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Should petitioner fail to make a good faith effort to satisfy these conditions, or should she commit any *191misconduct during the period of probation, her conditional right to practice may be terminated or she may be subjected to other discipline pursuant to the Rules for Lawyer Disciplinary Enforcement.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSION GRANTED.

*

 Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 2050** 

NICOLLE L. CONYERS ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; BARBARA BLANKENSHIP; CHRIS CAVANAUGH; MARK MCBRIDE ,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:15

- cv
- 00297

- HEH )

Submitted : January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Nicolle Conyers, Appellant Pro Se. Emily Rebecca Gantt, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, Summer Speight, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Nicolle Conyers appeals the district court ’ s order
dismissing her civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the dis trict court. Conyers v. Va. Hous. Dev.

Auth. , No. 3:15

- cv
- 00297

- HEH (E.D. Va. Aug. 11, 2015) . We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

th is court and argument would not aid th e decisional process.

AFFIRMED
News United States Air Force
 Lakenheath selected to host first F-35s in USAFEPublished Jan. 8, 2015
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Ryan Crane
                        
                        
                        U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa Public Affairs
                **RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AFNS) --**
                Royal Air Force Lakenheath, U.K., was selected as the first U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) base to host the F-35A Lightning II.
Air Force officials and the secretary of Defense chose RAF Lakenheath based on numerous attributes, including the air space, infrastructure and combined training opportunities the U.K. has to offer.
"The F-35, a true 5th generation fighter, gives teeth to our ability to support collective defense of Europe and its partners," said Gen. Frank Gorenc, the USAFE and Air Forces Africa commander. "It assures allies and partners alike and provides a credible deterrent."
The F-35s will be delivered to two fighter squadrons in multiple phases beginning in 2020. Each of the squadrons will have 24 Lightning IIs assigned; totaling 48 aircraft assigned to RAF Lakenheath once full mission capability is achieved.
"Lakenheath is the perfect base for the perfect weapon system in the perfect country," said Col. Robert Novotny, the 48th Fighter Wing commander. "From the beginning, the United States and the United Kingdom have been side-by-side on F-35 program development. This is about continuing to work together with our allies and partners to ensure a secure future for Europe."
The U.S. is one of nine joint strike fighter partner nations who have agreed to adopt the new platform. This makes European basing crucial to maintaining and improving combat readiness for Air Forces in Europe according to Gorenc.
In addition to basing F-35s at RAF Lakenheath, there are also plans to construct shared maintenance facilities for the aircraft in Italy and Turkey. The F-35 partnership is expected to bring the added benefits of increased allied interoperability and cost sharing.
"When pilots from different nations fly the same platform they talk the same language," Gorenc said. "Interoperability with F-35 partner nations is assured for decades."
As new threats evolve around the world, NATO continuously seeks new technologies that can deter and defeat those threats.
"Air superiority, freedom from attack and freedom to attack, has always been the primary mission of the U.S. Air Force," Gorenc said. "With air superiority everything is possible; without it nothing is possible."
The F-35A joins the F-22 Raptor as the U.S. Air Force's latest 5th generation fighter. It will replace the aging fleet of F-16 Fighting Falcons and A-10 Thunderbolt IIs, which have served as the U.S. Air Force's multi-role and attack fighter aircraft for more than 20 years.Joint Strike Fighter 



RAF Lakenheath 



U.K. 



England 



USAFE 



F-35 



F-35A Lightning II