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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                       681
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                       900
<INVENTORY>                                      6,856
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,720
<PP&E>                                          10,503
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,372
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,273
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         37
<COMMON>                                           368
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,082
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,845
<SALES>                                          3,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,123 
<CGS>                                            4,068
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,083
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (807)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,898)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,904)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,904)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)
        

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


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
     TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         20,971
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            133
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    46,111
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                        370,583
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                          358,606
<LOANS>                                       297,197
<ALLOWANCE>                                     3,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                790,584
<DEPOSITS>                                    631,975
<SHORT-TERM>                                        0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             6,231
<LONG-TERM>                                   106,337
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          790
<OTHER-SE>                                     45,251
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                790,584
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 5,756
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               4,977
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                2,044
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               12,777
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              4,941
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              6,616
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           6,161
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 4,035
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,066
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,325
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.37
<LOANS-NON>                                     3,153
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  406
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                3,841
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     106
<RECOVERIES>                                        8
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               3,803
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            3,803
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         3,352



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1666 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1666

  To amend title XVIII to protect patient access to ground ambulance 
             services under part B of the Medicare program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2023

 Mr. Wenstrup (for himself, Ms. Sewell, Mr. Carter of Georgia, and Mr. 
    Tonko) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII to protect patient access to ground ambulance 
             services under part B of the Medicare program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Access to Ground 
Ambulance Medical Services Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTING PATIENT ACCESS TO GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICES.

    Section 1834(l) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(l)) is 
amended--
            (1) in paragraph (12)(A), by striking ``2025'' and 
        inserting ``2028''; and
            (2) in paragraph (13)(A), by striking ``2025'' each place 
        it appears and inserting ``2028'' in each such place.
                                 <all>
```
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 19 - 00394 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF H.P. III, A CHILD On Appeal from the 100th District Court Childress County, Texas Trial Court No. 10,964, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding



### February 20 , 2020 ORDER OF ABATEMENT AND REMAND Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS , JJ. Appellant, Father , appeals from the trial court’s order adjudicating parentage and terminating h is parental rights to his child , H.P. III. 1 The petition to terminate was filed by appellee, Mother, and not by a governmental entity. Now pending before this Court is Father ’s motion requesting that we appoint counsel to represent him on appeal. We remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

1 To protect the privacy of the parties involved, we will refer to the appellant as “Father,” to the appellee as “Mother,” and to the child by his initials . See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 109.002(d) (West Supp. 2019); T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.8(b).2

In a suit requesting termination of the parent - child relationship that is not filed by a governmental entity, th e trial court shall appoint an attorney ad litem unless the court finds that the interest s of the child will be represented adequately by a party to the suit whose interests are not in conflict with the child’s interests. T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 10 7 .021(a 1 ) (West 2019 ). Accordingly, we abate th is appeal and remand the cause to the trial court to determine whether to appoint appellate counsel to represent Father pursuant to Section 107.021(a - 1) of the Family Code. See In re A.G.D ., No. 07 - 15 - 00201 - CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6072, at *1 - 2 (Tex. App. — Amarillo June 16, 2015, order) (per curiam). Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means it finds necessary to determine the following: (1) w hether Father still desires to prosecute the appeal; (2) whether Fa ther is indigent; and (3) whether counsel should be appointed to represent Father on appeal . Should the trial court appoint appellate counsel , the name, address, e - mail address, telephone number, and state bar number of appointed counsel shall be provided to the C lerk of this C ourt in an order of the court. The trial court shall also issue findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing subjects. A supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and any orders issued shall be filed with the C lerk of this C ourt on or before March 2, 2020 . It is so ordered. Per Curiam
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1920 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Library of Congress, 

Congressional Office For International Leadership for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Library of Congress, Congressional Office For International Leadership for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL 

5 OFFICE FOR INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP 

6 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Library of Congress, Congressional Office For 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1920 IH

1 International Leadership for fiscal year 2024 may not ex2 ceed $0.00. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of EXCO Resources, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



|                  |  |  |  |                                      
|----------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 5, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ DOUGLAS H. MILLER                
|                  |  |  |  | Douglas H. Miller                    
|                  |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer              
|                  |  | 
|                  |  |  |  | /s/ STEPHEN F. SMITH                 
|                  |  |  |  | Stephen F. Smith                     
|                  |  |  |  | President and Chief Financial Officer

The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 10.22





[English Summary]





Jiangxi Province Zhangshu City Yang-sheng (Nourishing Life) Tourism


Development Project Investment Agreement





Party A: Jiangxi Province Zhangshu City Government


Party B: Yida (Fujian) Tourism Limited Company





Purpose:


Party B will be investing in the Jiangxi Province Zhangshu City Yang-sheng (Nourishing Life) tourism development project (the “Project”), including spas, parks, hotels, towns and nourishing life manors, etc.





Project Area:


6,000 mu (actual land use right is around 3,000 mu, others will be provided in other ways)


Party B may obtain the land use rights from Party A through public listing transaction. The payment amount shall be the amount in the public listing transaction.





Jurisdiction:


Law of China





Dispute:


If there is any dispute between the parties, both parties shall resolve the dispute through compromise settlement. If the parties cannot reach the settlement, then either party can resolve the dispute by the courts of Nanchang City or Fuzhou City.





Date of the Agreement:


April 18, 2010





1





Supplement





Party A will pay to Party B the amount over 8,000 RMB per mu in one month for the Project. For the cultivated land leased from Party A to Party B, the rent is 200 RMB per mu annually. The rent for the mountain and forest shall be 150 RMB per mu annually. The rent is payable annually and is due by the end of January of each year.





The total investment of the Project is 2,500,000,000 RMB. Estimated to complete the Project in 6 to 8 years.





Date of Agreement:


April 18, 2010
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROSHAN SAH

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 1 29

- CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 1272135D )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time to file the brief

until December 12 , 2013

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

THE APPELLANT ’ S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. WM. Reagan Wynn

, the Appellant ’ s Attorney

,

prepare the Appellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before December 1 2 , 201 3

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 20 th day of November

, 201 3

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6536

DONALD E. ROBINSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

CALVIN ANTHONY, Warden; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER,

Attorney General for South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-04-945-HMH)

Submitted: August 31, 2005 Decided: September 9, 2005

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald E. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Donald E. Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Robinson has not made the requisite

showing. Moreover, as to the portions of the magistrate judge’s

report to which Robinson failed to object after being warned of the

consequences of such a failure, appellate review is waived. See

United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
#### Harry Rosenthal, Appellant, *v.*New York Rapid Transit Corporation, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 12, 1925.

Railroads — injury at station — plaintiff slipped on elevated railroad platform as he was about to board defendant’s train — weather conditions required application of some substance upon wet and slippery platform —■ plaintiff made out prima facie cause of action for negligence — error to dismiss complaint.

Plaintiff made out a *prima facie*cause of action for negligence and it was error to dismiss Ms complaint, in an action for damages suffered as the result of slipping upon defendant’s elevated railroad platform, where it appears from the evidence that the weather conditions were such as required the application of some substance to reduce the wet and slippery condition of defendant’s platform, since defendant was under a duty and had ample opportumty to put the platform in a reasonably safe condition.

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District, dismissing the complaint at the close of plaintiff’s case, after a trial before a judge and jury.

*Joel I. Schweitzer,*for the appellant.

*George D. Yoemans [Robert A. Kelly*of counsel], for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff sued for damages sustained as a result of slipping upon an elevated railroad platform owned and controlled by defendant. His complaint has been dismissed, at the close of his case, on the ground that no negligence has been shown. With this interpretation of the evidence we do not agree.

Plaintiff testified that it had snowed on the previous afternoon from four o’clock until he went to bed; that it was not snowing when he arose but that it was cold. He traveled about Brooklyn all morning and does not remember that there was snow upon the *514ground. He had put on rubbers when he left the house and was wearing them at the time of the accident. It was cold and misty, but ho does not know whether it was freezing. When the train came in at the elevated platform it stopped a little distance from where he was standing and he hurried to reach it before it started. He went faster than his usual walk, but was not running. As he came opposite a gate he slipped and fell, sustaining rather serious injuries. There were no ashes, sawdust or salt on the platform, and it was wet and slippery.

In our opinion, with the condition of the weather such as is thus described, the defendant company was under a duty and had ample opportunity to protect the platform by the application of some substance to reduce its slipperiness; consequently plaintiff has made out a *prima facie*cause of action.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Mullan and Cotillo, JJ.
#### Douglas Arody Gonzalez DE LEON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71318.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Decided June 19, 2006.

Douglas Arody Gonzalez De Leon, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David B. Edwards, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Legal Division, Dallas, TX, for Respondent.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Douglas Arody Gonzalez de Leon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, *Hakeem v. INS,*273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir.2001), we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s factual determination that Gonzalez de Leon is ineligible for asylum because he failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing of his application. *See Ramadan v. Gonzales,*427 F.3d 1218, 1221-22 (9th Cir.2005).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal because Gonzalez de Leon failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of an enumerated ground. *See Bolshakov v. INS,*133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir.1998) (explaining that evidence of criminal street gang activity does not establish persecution on account of a protected ground); *see also Pedro-Mateo v. INS,*224 F.3d 1147, 1150-51 (9th Cir.2000) (upholding conclusion that petitioner failed to establish that the military and guerrillas were interested in him for any reason other than his physical presence in a particular war-torn region of Guatemala).

Gonzalez de Leon’s remaining contentions are without merit.

*661PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.