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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,370,305
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  358,663
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,840,287
<PP&E>                                       3,645,804
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,672,986)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,033,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          459,531
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       292,874
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,094,087
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,033,649
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,653,788
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,057,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (81,850)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,322,206)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,322,206)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,322,206)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Operating  Partners  1992-B  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         266,535
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  330,034
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               620,268
<PP&E>                                         9,084,145
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,755,253)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,262,011
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          88,010
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,801,357
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,262,011
<SALES>                                        480,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               492,757
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  364,514<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                21,172
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            21,172
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   21,172
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>



</TABLE>
#### E. Smith *v.*Wm. Rodes et al.

Appeal — Finaal Order — Filing Away — Motion to Reinstate.

An order directing that a ease be filed away is not final and an order of the court overruling a motion to reinstate the case on the docket is not a judgment dismissing the action from which an appeal may be prosecuted.

APPEAL PROM ROCKCASTLE CIRCUIT COURT.

October 3, 1867.

Turner, *for appellant.*

*Beeman, for appellee.*

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The order directing that the case be “filed away until the further order of the court” was not, in our opinion, a final order, as equivalent to a dismissal of the action. It is however insisted for the appellant that the subsequent order of the Court overruling the plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the cause on the docket was constructively a judgment dismissing the action from which an appeal may be prosecuted by this court. But we do not so construe the action of the court, which, in our opinion, did not constitute a final judgment, revisable in this Court, but amounted only to a non-suit, reserving to the plaintiff the right to prosecute his claim by another action.

As from this view it results that this court has no jurisdiction of the subject of this appeal, the appeal is dismissed.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 10614 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:17

- cv

- 61567

- BB

DENNIS HAYNES,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus PANDA EXPRESS, INC., a foreign corporation,

Defendant

- Appel lee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (July 12, 2018)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge , WILSON, and FAY , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-10614 Date Filed: 07/12/2018 Page: 1 of 22 The district court’s judgment is VACATE D and REMANDED for

re consideration in light of Haynes v. Hooters of Am., LLC , No. 17

- 13170, ___
F.3d ___, 2018 WL 3030840 (11th Cir. 2018).

Case: 18-10614 Date Filed: 07/12/2018 Page: 2 of 2
1Pursuant 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 01-50232

_____________________

MARTIN ALVAREZ; PETE ALVAREZ;

SERGIO ARMENDARIZ; ANDREW BROOKS;

TAYLOR BARKLEY; GARY CADD; HECTOR

JESUS CANO; PEDRO A. CHAVEZ;

BRUCE A. CRUMP; MARIO D’AGOSTINO;

ROBERTO FLORES; RAUL GARCIA-FLORES;

DAVID GONZALEZ; GREG HERNANDEZ;

MARIO HERNANDEZ; RICHARD HOLGUIN;

MARK KLINE; LORENZO MARQUEZ;

ANTONIO MURO, JR.; MICHAEL NELIGH;

CARLOS A. PIEDRA; ERIC SODEMANN;

MICHAEL A. STUBBLEFIELD; DANIEL TARIN;

JOSEPH A. TELLEZ; MIGUEL A. TORRES;

DAVE VALERO

All individually and on behalf of all

other employees similarly situated,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

CITY OF EL PASO,

Defendant - Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

No. EP-00-CV-103-H

February 14, 2002

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Martin Alvarez and twenty-seven other firefighters brought
2

suit against the City of El Paso based on the Fair Labor Standards

Act (FLSA). They claimed that the City had violated the FLSA, 29

U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), by refusing to pay compensation for their lunch

hour. They argued that, because the City placed so many

restrictions on the firefighters’ activities during lunch, it was

impossible to derive any personal benefits from the lunch hour.

Thus, because the lunch hour did not qualify as a bona fide meal

period under the FLSA, they were entitled to be compensated for the

hour. The district court granted the City’s motion for summary

judgment. Alvarez now appeals.

We have studied the briefs, heard the argument of the parties,

and considered the issues raised in this appeal. It is now clear

to us that the finding and conclusions of the district court are

not reversible. In deciding whether a lunch hour qualifies as a

bona fide meal period, the courts apply a “predominant benefit

test.” See Bernard v. IBP, Inc. of Nebraska, 154 F.3d 259, 264

(5th Cir. 1998). “The critical question [under this test] is

whether the meal period is used predominantly or primarily for the

benefit of the employer or for the benefit of the employee.” Id.

at 264-65. In resolving this question, we must decide whether the

employee can use the time during lunch for his or her own purposes.

Id. at 266. The restrictions placed here on the employees’ dress

and use of city-owned automobiles were more in the nature of

inconveniences than restrictions on the free use of the time at
3

issue. The district court therefore did not err when it

determined, as a matter of law, that the firefighters could use the

lunch hour time primarily for their own personal benefit.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.
W E A T H E R

A L E R T S

71°F

high

63°F

avg

55°F

low

AVG

TEMPS

3.29

inches

AVG MONTHLY 

PRECIP

10.6

days

AVG PRECIP DAYS

PRECIPITATION

wind advisories

lightning advisories

lightning warnings

8.78

6.56

7.22

AVG 

COUNT

W I N D S P E E D & 

D I R E C T I O N

RECORD 97°F

33°F TEMPS 5/31/1991

5/10/2020

T E M P E R A T U R E

W I N D

S P E E D

W E A T H E R

A L E R T S

R E C O R D M O N T H L Y 

TOTALS

M AY C L I M AT O L O GY 

P R E C I P I T A T I O N

MAX WIND 

GUST

5/11/2008

M

P 67 H

May c l i m a t o l o g y a t W a l l o p s F l i g h t F a c i l i t y │ 1 9 6 3 - p r e s e n t ( u n l e s s n o t e d o t h e r w i s e )

T E M P E R A T U R E

2015 - present

2015 - present

15

13

15

Wind

Advisories

Lightning

Advisories

Lightning

Warnings

2017

2021*

2022

*latest of multiple years

2016

8.11

inches

RECORD MONTHLY PRECIP

5 / 3 1 / 1 9 7 9

2.75

inches

RECORD SINGLE-DAY PRECIP
#### J. Heartley & Co. *v.*John Baird et al.

Assignment for Benefit of Creditors — Deed of Trust.

The deed of trust made by defendant to one Baird, as trustee, for the use of his creditors, vested them with rights which did not depend on the trustee executing bond'and taking the oath prescribed by law.

Property Embraced in Deed.

The original stock and also such new stock as may have been purchased with its proceeds was protected by said deed of trust.

APPEAL EROM JEEEERSON CIRCUIT COURT. COMMON PLEAS.

December 19, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

.Judge Williams :

The deed of trust made by Miller to Baird as trustee for the use of his creditors, made October 15, 1866, vested the creditors of Miller with rights which did not depend on the proper subsequent proceedings of the trustee, therefore, whether he executed the bond and took the oath as prescribed by the act of March 2, 1860, Myer Sup. 533, is'not important further than to evidence a fraudulent combination. The larger portion of the creditors, both as to number and amount, having agreed that Miller should still conduct the business, no unfavorable inference is manifested by the trustee assenting to it.'

Apellants could either resort to their pro rata claim as to these goods, or they could resort to the trustee’s bond if one was exe-. cuted, as they did not consent to Miller’s still conducting the business, else they could resort to their judgment at law and levy on such property of Miller asds not purchased with its proceeds. ,

*117*Bruce &*Bussell, *for Appellant.*

*Bijur &*Thompson, *for Appellee.*

Whilst such transactions are to be regarded with great jealousy, yet the evidence in this case exhibits no illegal purchase.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                             EXHIBIT 21.1


            PDS FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES


                            PARENT AND SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              PERCENTAGE OF
                                                              VOTING SECURITIES
                                            ORGANIZED UNDER   BENEFICIALLY OWNED
NAME OF COMPANY                             LAWS OF           BY REGISTRANT
---------------                             ---------------   ------------------
<S>                                         <C>               <C>
REGISTRANT:
PDS Financial Corporation                    Minnesota

CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT:
PDS Financial Corporation - Nevada           Nevada                   100
PDS Financial Corporation - Mississippi      Mississippi              100
PDS Casinos International, Inc.              Minnesota                100
Transcanada 2 Corporation                    Minnesota                100
</TABLE>
*

Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr., Senior U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 

 **We do not address cases in which the property taken by the government is something other

than money, but we do not mean to hint that the law would necessarily be different if some other

kind of property were involved. 

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 94-4948.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Willie James WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

Aug. 27, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (No. 92-288-CRSJM), Stanley J. Marcus, Judge.

Before TJOFLAT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and O'NEILL*

, Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Willie Watkins appeals the denial of his motion under Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e) for return of

property ($2,471.91) seized by federal officers at the time of his arrest on drug charges. The money

was not used as evidence at Watkins's criminal trial, in which he was convicted. In the Rule 41(e)

proceedings, the government represented to the district court that the money had been

administratively forfeited by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

 When property is retained pursuant to civil forfeiture, instead of for use as evidence, a Rule

41(e) motion is not available. United States v. Castro, 883 F.2d 1018, 1019 (11th Cir.1989). When

the government, in its written response to a Rule 41(e) motion, admits its position is that, by

forfeiture, the movant has already permanently lost his right to the pertinent property, the

government's judicial admission is enough to deprive the court of the authority to grant the Rule

41(e) motion. Put differently, when the government says in court that the property (at least, where

it is money—a fungible item**) has been, in fact, forfeited to it (that is, has been taken in fact ), the

issue for adjudication then becomes whether the government has acted wrongfully in taking the
2

property. We do not understand Watkins to have argued to the district court or to us that his money

had not, in fact, been taken, but understand him to say it was taken without due process.

 Equitable relief beyond Rule 41(e), if it was asked for in district court, was unavailable.

Equitable jurisdiction to review a forfeiture is extremely limited and does not lie where the claimant

has an adequate remedy at law. See, e.g., In re $67,470.00, 901 F.2d 1540, 1544-45 (11th Cir.1990).

Watkins could seek money damages through a lawsuit—see 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (the Tucker

Act)—against the United States if the government has wrongfully converted his property; for

example, if appropriate administrative procedures were not followed. The dismissal of the Rule

41(e) motion, in itself, does not adjudicate the lawfulness of the forfeiture.

The district court's denial of Mr. Watkins's motion is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Dede Dinius","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/darin-l-diniusnasa-gov\/","title":"C-20A Environmental Science Research Aircraft","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"46brHdfXlk\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/c-20a\/\">C-20A Environmental Science Research Aircraft<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/armstrong\/c-20a\/embed\/#?secret=46brHdfXlk\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“C-20A Environmental Science Research Aircraft” — NASA\" data-secret=\"46brHdfXlk\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/304089main_ED07-0042-09_full.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2508 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 683
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2508

                          [Report No. 108-327]

     To redesignate the Ridges Basin Reservoir, Colorado, as Lake 
                              Nighthorse.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 7, 2004

  Mr. Domenici  (for himself and Mr. Allard) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

                            August 25, 2004

 Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of July 22, 2004, 
                   by Mr. Domenici, with an amendment
                  [Insert the part printed in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To redesignate the Ridges Basin Reservoir, Colorado, as Lake 
                              Nighthorse.

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

SECTION 1. RENAMING OF RESERVOIR.

    The reservoir known as the ``Ridges Basin Reservoir'' located on 
Basin Creek, a tributary of the Animas River in Colorado, constructed 
under section 6(a) of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement 
Act of 1988 (102 Stat. 2975; 114 Stat. 2763A-260), shall be known and 
designated as ``Lake Nighthorse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the reservoir referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to Lake Nighthorse.

                                                       Calendar No. 683

108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2508

                          [Report No. 108-327]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

     To redesignate the Ridges Basin Reservoir, Colorado, as Lake 
                              Nighthorse.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            August 25, 2004

                       Reported with an amendment
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE BARD IVC FILTERS CASE NO. MD-15-02641-PHX-DGC 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL 2641

_______________________________________ 

This Document Relates to Plaintiff,

Patti Conard and Lawrence Conard

Case No. 2:17-cv-003244-DGC

_______________________________________ 

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW attorney, Brian S. Katz, of the Flint Law Firm, LLC, and enters his 

appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff(s) in the above referenced action. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

FLINT LAW FIRM LLC 

/s/ Brian S. Katz

Brian S. Katz, KY Bar No. 86633 

FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC 

2226 Broadway, Suite 1 

Post Office Box 2903 

Paducah, Kentucky 42002-2903 

Phone: (270) 575-3939 

Fax: (270) 575-3936 

bkatz@flintfirm.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8368 Filed 10/23/17 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 Annual Report of Avici Systems Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William J. Stuart, Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President of Finance and Treasurer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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) | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  |                                                                                   
| |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    WILLIAM J. STUART
| |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | William J. Stuart                                                                 
| |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretary and Senior Vice President of Finance
| |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | March 15, 2007