alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

| (1) | The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |                                  |                      |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                          | STUDIO ONE MEDIA, INC.                |
|                          |                                  |                      |
| Date:  May 16, 2011 | By:                         | /s/  Preston J. Shea |
|                          | Preston J. Shea                       |
|                          | President and Chief Executive Officer |

|                          |                                                 |                          |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                          | STUDIO ONE MEDIA, INC.                               |
|                          |                                                 |                          |
| Date:  May 16, 2011 | By:                                        | /s/  Kenneth R. Pinckard |
|                          | Kenneth R. Pinckard                                  |
|                          | Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer |
#### Wm. Pence *v.*Geo. W. Anderson, etc.

Replevin — Judgment for Return of Property.

Wiiere defendant in replevin objects to the setting aside of a judgment for return of the property and the submission of the question of the value of the property and the 'damages, to- its detention, he was not prejudiced by the judgment for return of the property.

APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY ¡CIRCUIT COURT.

January 27, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

This action was brought by appellant to recover the possession of a bay mare, saddle, blanket and bridle, upon which the sheriff of Montgomery County had levied an execution in favor of appellee against him', and having executed bond under Section 211, Civil Code, and appellee having failed to take the necessary steps to prevent it, the property was surrendered by the sheriff to appellant.

At the June term', 1870, of the Montgomery Circuit Court, hp dismissed his action, and on a subsequent day of- the same term of the court appellee moved to- amend the order of dismissal and for a judgment for a return of the property to be subjected to- the satisfaction of his execution, and the court sustained the motion and amended the judgment.

And on a subsequent day of the same term of court appellee moved the court to set aside the judgment rendered in the case, and to have a jury empanelled and sworn to ascertain and fix the value of the property levied on by the sheriff, to which appellant objected.

In his bond executed for the purpose of having the property taken by the sheriff delivered to- him-, appellant undertook that he would duly prosecute the action and perform the judgment of the court therein by returning the bay mare, saddle, -blanket, and bridle delivered to- him if a return should be adjudged by the court or pay to Tipton, the sheriff, or to Anderson, the plaintiff in the execution, such sums of money as shall be adjudged against him.

After the execution of the bond and the delivery of the property to him- by virtue thereof he had no- right to dismiss his- action, and to prevent a judgment against him' for a return thereof, or for the *401value to be assessed, and damages for the detention. *Rogers v. Bradford,*8 Bush 163. To ascertain the value of the property and the damages for the detention, it was proper to have a jury em-panelled. But appellee’s motion therefor was objected to by appellant and he also opposed the setting aside of the .judgment which had been rendered against him for the return of the property, and by doing so he waived his right to a jury, and the mere judgment for a return of what he had, by his action and bond deprived the sheriff, was not prejudicial. .

*W. H.*Holt, *for appellant.*

*Turner & French, for appellee.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           2,449
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,916
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,724
<INVENTORY>                                      5,872
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,103
<PP&E>                                         194,201
<DEPRECIATION>                                 124,872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,465
<BONDS>                                          4,773
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,814
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,493
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,408
<SALES>                                        101,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,347
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   96,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,765
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,427)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,133)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,294)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,294)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.94)


</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4085 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 7,7′′ - [(2- 

methyl-1,5-pentanediyl) bis[imino(6-fluoro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl) imino]] 

bis[ 4-hydroxy-3-[(4-methoxy sulfophenyl) azo]-, potassium sodium salt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 31, 2004 

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

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Naphthalenesulfonic 

acid, 7,7′′ - [(2-methyl-1,5-pentanediyl) bis[imino(6- 

fluoro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl) imino]] bis[ 4-hydroxy-3- 

[(4-methoxy sulfophenyl) azo]-, potassium sodium salt. 

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

•HR 4085 IH 

1 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON 2- 

2 NAPHTHALENESULFONIC ACID, 7,7′′ - [(2- 

3 METHYL-1,5-PENTANEDIYL) BIS[IMINO(6- 

4 FLUORO-1,3,5-TRIAZINE-4,2-DIYL) IMINO]] BIS[ 

5 4-HYDROXY-3-[(4-METHOXY SULFOPHENYL) 

6 AZO]-, POTASSIUM SODIUM SALT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

9 amended by striking heading 9902.32.86 and inserting the 

10 following: 

‘‘ 9902.32.86 2-Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 

7,7′′ - [(2-methyl-1,5- 

pentanediyl) bis[imino(6- 

fluoro-1,3,5-triazine-4,2-diyl) 

imino]] bis[ 4-hydroxy-3-[(4- 

methoxy sulfophenyl) azo]-, 

potassium sodium salt (CAS 

No. 152397–21–2) (provided 

for in subheading 

3204.16.30) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

12 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

13 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

14 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Filed 4/30/09 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2009 ND 67

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Lam Bao Tran, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20080240

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Steven L. Marquart, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Gary E. Euren, Assistant State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 2806, Fargo, ND 58108- 2806, for plaintiff and appellee.  Submitted on brief.

Brian W. Nelson, 111 South 9th Street, Fargo, ND 58103-1831, for defendant and appellant.  Submitted on brief.

State v. Tran

No. 20080240

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Lam Bao Tran appealed from a criminal judgment entered subsequent to a conditional guilty plea to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and possession of ecstasy.  On appeal, Tran argued the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence because there was not sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause for a search warrant.  We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6437
LARRY JEROME BROOKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus M. N. BARKER, Individually and as a City Police Officer, Defendant - Appellee, and CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM, Defendant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-80-6) Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Jerome Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Gusti Wiesenfeld Frankel,Ursula Marie Henninger, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, for Appellees.* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. * We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Brooks v. City of Winston-Salem , No. CA-94-80-6 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 19, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 21



MAYTAG CORPORATION



List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant



The following schedule lists the subsidiaries of Maytag Corporation, a Delaware corporation, as of December 31, 2005.



|                                                    |  |                                
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------
|Corporate Name                                      |  | State or Country ofOrganization
|Maytag Sales Inc.                                   |  | Delaware                       
|Maytag Holdings, Inc.                               |  | Delaware                       
|Dixie-Narco, Inc.                                   |  | Delaware                       
|Amana Financial Services, Inc.                      |  | Delaware                       
|Maytag Services, LLC                                |  | Delaware                       
|The Hoover Company                                  |  | Delaware                       
|The Hoover General, LLC                             |  | Delaware                       
|The Hoover Limited, LLC                             |  | Delaware                       
|Hoover Company I LP                                 |  | Delaware                       
|Maytag International, Inc.                          |  | Delaware                       
|Maharashtra Investment, Inc.                        |  | Delaware                       
|Maytag Manufacturing, LLC                           |  | Delaware                       
|Maytag Mexico Appliance Products, S. de R.L de C.V. |  | Mexico                         
|Jade Products Company                               |  | Delaware                       
|Maytag Comercial, S.de R.L. de C.V.                 |  | Mexico                         
|Maytag Servicios, S.de R.L. de C.V.                 |  | Mexico                         
|Hoover Holdings Inc.                                |  | Delaware                       
|Juver Industrial S.A. de C.V.                       |  | Mexico                         
|Maytag Limited                                      |  | Canada                         
|Maytag Europe Ltd.                                  |  | United Kingdom                 
|Maytag (Australia) Pty., Ltd.                       |  | Australia                      
|Maytag Worldwide N.V. Antilles                      |  | Netherlands                    
|Maytag International Investments, Inc.              |  | Delaware                       
|Anvil Technologies LLC                              |  | Delaware                       



NOTE:
Ownership in subsidiaries is 100% unless otherwise indicated.



Other subsidiaries in the aggregate would not constitute a significant subsidiary.
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4232 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 7, 2004 

Received 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4025 Feather Lakes Way in Kingwood, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Congressman Jack Fields 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 4232 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 4025 Feather Lakes Way in Kingwood, Texas, 

4 and known as the Kingwood Post Office, is hereby redesig5 nated as the ‘‘Congressman Jack Fields Post Office’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Congressman Jack Fields Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 6, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 70865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28152]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9018-2]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 11/17/2014 Through 11/21/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140332, Final EIS, BR, NV, Newlands Project Final Resource 
Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 12/29/2014, Contact: Bob Edwards 
775-884-8342
EIS No. 20140333, Draft EIS, BR, CA, Central Valley Project Municipal 
and Industrial Water Shortage Policy, Comment Period Ends: 01/12/2015, 
Contact: Tim Rust 916-978-5516
EIS No. 20140334, Final EIS, USAF, SD, Powder River Training Complex 
Ellsworth Air Force Base, Review Period Ends: 12/29/2014, Contact: 
Judith Keith 210-925-3367
EIS No. 20140335, Final EIS, USFS, CO, Village at Wolf Creek Access 
Project, Review Period Ends: 01/05/2015, Contact: Adam Mendonca 719-
852-6225
EIS No. 20140336, Final EIS, NIH, MD, Proposed 2013 Master Plan 
National Institutes of Health Bethesda Campus, Review Period Ends: 01/
05/2015, Contact: Mark Radtke 301-451-6467
EIS No. 20140337, Final EIS, USFWS, AZ, Proposed Revision to the 
Regulations for the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican 
Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), Review Period Ends: 12/29/2014, Contact: 
Sherry Barrett 505-761-4704
EIS No. 20140338, Draft EIS, USACE, CA, Cordova Hills Project, Comment 
Period Ends: 01/12/2015, Contact: Lisa Gibson 916-557-5288

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20140298, Draft EIS, USACE, WA, Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem 
Restoration, Comment Period Ends: 01/23/2015, Contact: Nancy C. Gleason 
206-764-6577 Revision to FR Notice Published 10/10/2014; Extending 
Comment Period from 11/24/2014 to 01/23/2015
EIS No. 20140314, Draft EIS, HUD, CA, Potrero HOPE SF Master Plan 
Project, Comment Period Ends: 01/07/2015, Contact: Eugene Flannery 415-
701-5598 Revision to FR Notice Published 11/07/2014; Extending Comment 
Period from 12/22/2014 to 01/07/2015

    Dated: November 24, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-28152 Filed 11-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Rev. 1/8/2021

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of Illinois

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Thomas G. Bruton 312-435-5670

Clerk

Date: Case Number:

Case Title: Judge: 

Thomas G. Bruton, Clerk 

By: /s/

Deputy Clerk 

DIGITAL EXHIBIT INFORMATION FORM - PUBLIC

Filing Party:

Exhibit is linked to entry:

NOTE: This form is for Non-Sealed Documents only. For instructions regarding Sealed Documents, 

please see Local Rule 26.2.

If you wish to download a digital exhibit, please send your request to the Certified Copy Desk (CCD) 

inbox at CCD_ILND@ilnd.uscourts.gov. You will be provided with an invoice and charged according 

to the Fee Schedule. Once your payment has been processed, you will receive a URL via email to 

download the exhibit.

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 83 Filed: 11/08/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:2493
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-15490

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-00132-JRH-BKE

GERSON AYALA ROMERO, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

BENJAMIN FORD,

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF GEORGIA,

 Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Georgia

________________________

(August 23, 2018)

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-15490 Date Filed: 08/23/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Gerson Ayala Romero, a pro se Georgia prisoner serving 20 years’ 

imprisonment after pleading guilty to multiple offenses, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as second or successive. 

Romero argues (1) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his 

counsel did not prepare a defense and communicate with him. He argues that his 

counsel’s performance caused him to enter a guilty plea and that he was 

prejudiced; (2) that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because 

his counsel did not provide him with an interpreter to understand the consequences 

of entering a guilty plea, and that his rights under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 

238, 89 S. Ct. 1709 (1969), were violated because he did not knowingly waive his 

rights against self-incrimination and to a jury trial; and (3) that the denial of an 

interpreter violated his due process rights because he did not understand the 

consequences of entering a guilty plea. 

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) 

provides that, before a movant may file a second or successive § 2254 habeas 

petition, the petitioner first must obtain an order from this court authorizing the 

district court to consider the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent our 

authorization, “the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or 

successive [§ 2254] petition.” Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th 

Cir. 2003) (per curiam). The Supreme Court has held that the phrase “second or 

Case: 17-15490 Date Filed: 08/23/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

successive” in § 2244(b) refers to a second or successive petition challenging the 

same state-court judgment. Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 332–33, 130 S. 

Ct. 2788, 2797 (2010). 

The district court did not err in determining that Romero’s § 2254 petition 

was second or successive. Romero previously filed a § 2254 petition that was 

denied with prejudice as untimely in 2016; therefore, he was required to obtain our 

authorization in order to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(b)(3)(A). Because he did not have our authorization, the district court 

properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-15490 Date Filed: 08/23/2018 Page: 3 of 3
MAYTAG CORPORATION
                                 
                                 Exhibit 12

                        Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                                    <PAGE>



                            MAYTAG CORPORATION
                                Exhibit 12
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
              (Amounts in thousands of dollars except ratios)


                                      Year Ended December 31
                        1998       1997       1996       1995        1994

Consolidated pretax
income from
continuing
operations before
minority interest,
extraordinary item
and cumulative
effect of
accounting changes   $ 470,885  $ 300,555  $ 228,237  $  59,804   $ 241,337

Interest expense        62,765     58,995     43,006     52,087      74,077

Depreciation of
capitalized
interest                 2,952      2,530      1,553      1,695       1,772

Interest portion
of rental expense        7,764      6,989      6,448      8,789      10,722

Earnings             $ 544,366  $ 369,069  $ 279,244  $ 122,375   $ 327,908


Interest expense     $  62,765  $  58,995  $  43,006  $  52,087   $  74,077

Interest
capitalized                 17      4,191      8,905      2,534         547

Interest portion
of rental expense        7,764      6,989      6,448      8,789      10,722

Fixed charges        $  70,546  $  70,175  $  58,359  $  63,410   $  85,346


Ratio of earnings
to fixed charges          7.72       5.26        4.78       1.93       3.84

   <PAGE>