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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-02-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,621
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                       206
<INVENTORY>                                     10,875
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                41,946
<PP&E>                                          15,895
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,968
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,996
<BONDS>                                          4,825
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            78
<OTHER-SE>                                      28,490
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,186
<SALES>                                         45,006
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,006
<CGS>                                           26,649
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,689
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 211
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,011
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,404
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,607
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,607
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.36


</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 190 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reinstate the exception 

for de minimis payments by third party settlement organizations with 

respect to returns relating to payments made in settlement of payment 

card and third party network transactions, as in effect prior to the 

enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia (for herself, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. FERGUSON, 

Mr. ESTES, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. 

SCHWEIKERT, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. KUSTOFF, Mr. SMUCKER, Mr. SMITH

of Nebraska, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. LAHOOD, and Mr. HERN) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 

Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reinstate 

the exception for de minimis payments by third party 

settlement organizations with respect to returns relating 

to payments made in settlement of payment card and 

third party network transactions, as in effect prior to 

the enactment of the American Rescue Plan Act. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 190 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Saving Gig Economy 

3 Taxpayers Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF EXCEPTION FOR DE MINIMIS 

5 PAYMENTS AS IN EFFECT PRIOR TO ENACT6 MENT OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6050W(e) of the Internal 

8 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(e) EXCEPTION FOR DE MINIMIS PAYMENTS BY

10 THIRD PARTY SETTLEMENT ORGANIZATIONS.—A third 

11 party settlement organization shall be required to report 

12 any information under subsection (a) with respect to third 

13 party network transactions of any participating payee only 

14 if— 

15 ‘‘(1) the amount which would otherwise be re16 ported under subsection (a)(2) with respect to such 

17 transactions exceeds $20,000, and 

18 ‘‘(2) the aggregate number of such transactions 

19 exceeds 200.’’. 

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

21 this section shall take effect as if included in section 9674 

22 of the American Rescue Plan Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
NUMBER 13-18-00668-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

ADRIANA RAMIREZ, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 105th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

Appellant’s brief was due on September 9, 2019. Pursuant to Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2), on September 10, 2019, the Clerk of the Court notified 

appellant’s counsel that the brief had not been timely filed, requested counsel to file a 

response concerning the failure to file the brief within ten days, and warned counsel that 
2

the Court would abate and remand this cause to the trial court for appropriate findings if 

a response was not filed. Counsel has nevertheless failed to file either a response or an 

appellate brief in this matter. 

Accordingly, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) and (3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make 

appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether 

appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; (2) why appellant's counsel has failed to file a 

brief and whether counsel has effectively abandoned the appeal; (3) whether appellant 

has been denied effective assistance of counsel; (4) whether appellant's counsel should 

be removed; and (5) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to court-appointed counsel.

If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue the appeal, that 

present counsel should be removed, and that appellant is indigent and entitled to 

court-appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint new counsel to represent appellant 

in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, email address, telephone 

number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in an order appointing 

counsel.

The trial court shall cause its findings and recommendations, together with any 

orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental 

clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record 

of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental 
3

reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the 

expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

27th day of September, 2019.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM
10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                         6,476
<SECURITIES>                                     987
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,247
<ALLOWANCES>                                     651
<INVENTORY>                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              16,685
<PP&E>                                         8,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                 6,287
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                19,779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,582
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                      321
<COMMON>                                         136
<OTHER-SE>                                    12,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  19,779
<SALES>                                        8,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              11,211
<CGS>                                          1,520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  8,830
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,922
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   1
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3,616)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (3,616)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (3,616)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.27)
        


</TABLE>
11363.

#### Benford *v.*Bledsoe.

Decided March 3, 1921.

Action for malicious prosecution; from city court of Carrollton — Judge Beall. February 5, 1920.

*Q. E.*Boop, *Leon*Hood, for plaintiff in error.

*Smith &*Smith, *Eugene*Spradlin, contra.

Stephens, J.

1. Facts wliieli are in law insufficient to authorize a conviction of a specific crime may nevertheless afford probable cause for the institution of a prosecution for such crime. Facts which do not authorize a conviction of simple larceny may afford probable cause for a prosecution for such crime when they do authorize a conviction of larceny after trust.

2. In a suit for malicious prosecution, it being a question of law for the court as to what facts constitute probable cause *(Hicks*v. *Brantley,*102 *Ga.*264, 272, 29 S. E. 459), it follows that where the plaintiff had been entrusted by a member, of a firm, to which the defendant belonged, with an amount of lumber to be delivered by the plaintiff and sold to a third person, the proceeds of the sale to be collected by the plaintiff, and paid to the defendant’s firm, and such third person had made payment for the lumber to the plaintiff and the latter had failed to transmit such payment to the defendant’s firm, which facts were known to the defendant, who, with knowledge of the facts, instituted a prosecution against the plaintiff for simple larceny, instead of larceny after trust, the proseeuton was instituted by the defendant with probable cause.

3. The undisputed evidence showing the above facts and demanding the inference that the prosecution was carried on with probable cause, the verdict for the plaintiff was without evidence to support it, and it was error to overrule the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.*
**EXHIBIT 10.8**

 

ANDREW CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN AGREEMENT

 

THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of July, 2004, by and between AndrewCorporation (the “Company”) and Jim Petelle (the “Executive”),

 

WITNESSETH:

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Andrew Corporation ExecutiveSeverance Benefit Plan, as amended and restated effective May 14, 2004 (the“Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Executive has been designated as an eligible participantin the Plan;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Executive and Company hereby agree as follows:

 

1.                                       PlanBenefits.  The Executive has beendesignated as a TIER III Participant in the Plan and shall be eligible solelyfor the benefits set forth therein applicable to TIER III Participants.  The receipt of such benefits shall be subjectto all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Plan, including, but notlimited to, terms related to the amount, time and form of benefits.  By execution of this Agreement, theExecutive agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Plan, as amended andrestated effective May 14, 2004, and as may be subsequently amended.

 

2.                                       Arbitration.  The Executive acknowledges thatSection 7.2 of the Plan contains an arbitration provision, and byexecution of this Agreement agrees to be bound by the terms of such arbitrationprovision.

 

3.                                       PlanNot Contract of Employment.  ThePlan does not constitute a contract of employment and nothing in the Plan shallbe construed to give the Executive the right to be retained by the Company orto any benefits not specifically provided by the Plan.

 

4.                                       PlanSupercedes Prior Change in Control Severance Agreements.  The Executive acknowledges and agrees thatthe benefits and terms set forth in the May 14, 2004 restatement of the Plan,as applicable to the Participant based on the Tier designated in paragraph 1above, are a replacement for and in lieu of any benefits to which the Executivemay have been entitled under the Plan prior to its restatement or under anyother agreement with the Company relating to Change in Control severancebenefits.  The Executive furtheracknowledges such benefits and terms may be subsequently amended pursuant toSection 7.1 of the Plan.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to beexecuted as of the date first above written.

 
| EXECUTIVE            | ANDREW CORPORATION                           |
|----------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                 |                                         |
|                 |                                         |
| /s/ James F. Petelle |                                         | /s/ Ralph E. Faison |   |
| , individually       |                                         | By: Ralph E. Faison |
|                 | Its: President & Chief Executive Officer |
|                      |                                              |  |  |  |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARCUS O. TAITE,

(AIS #: 180664)

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0530-CG-B

)

SPENCER B. WALKER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, this action is DISMISSED 

without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of December, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00530-CG-B Document 8 Filed 12/31/14 Page 1 of 1
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2010 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health 

and Human Services, The Administration for Children and Families, 

Payments to States for the Child Care and Development Block Grant 

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 Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Health and Human Services, The Administration for Children and Families, Payments to States 

for the Child Care and Development Block Grant 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2010 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERV3 ICES, THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN 

4 AND FAMILIES, PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR 

5 THE CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 

6 GRANT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Health and Human Services, The 

10 Administration for Children and Families, Payments to 

11 States for the Child Care and Development Block Grant 

12 for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $5,276,000,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID E. COX, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CA 15-0032-WS-C

INLAND DREDGING COMPANY, :

LLC, etc., et al.,

:

Defendants.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action is due to be, and hereby is, DISMISSED, 

in accordance with Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, due to plaintiff’s

failure to prosecute this action by obeying this Court’s lawful orders dated January 25, 

2016, March 7, 2016, and March 8, 2016, and ignoring the defendants’ valid attempts to 

conduct court-authorized discovery.

DONE this 20th day of May, 2016.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00032-WS-C Document 44 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 1
#### Augustin Vasquez Vargas, Respondent, v Central Parking System, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 220]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered February 24, 2006, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is an issue of fact as to whether the ice on which plaintiff allegedly slipped was a result of melting and refreezing of the runoff from the mountain of snow on the sidewalk adjacent to defendant’s premises, created by its employees three *256days earlier *(see Santiago v New York City Hous. Auth.,*274 AD2d 335 [2000]). In view of plaintiffs theory that defendant’s snow removal methods created the alleged dangerous condition, defendant’s contention that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to notice is without merit *(Yery Suh v Fleet Bank, N.A.,*16 AD3d 276 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2023 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 

Education, Innovation and Improvement 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 Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Education, Innovation and Improvement 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 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, INNOVATION 

5 AND IMPROVEMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:11 Apr 15, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2023.IH H2023

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2023 IH

1 able for Department of Education, Innovation and Im2 provement for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Benton H Wilcoxon, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Composite Technology Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ended
December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Composite Technology Corporation.

Date: February 14, 2005

By: /s/ Benton H Wilcoxon

Benton H Wilcoxon
Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**SYMBION, INC.**

 

**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 Report of Symbion, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Richard E. Francis, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 ofthe 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 the best of my knowledge information contained in  the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition  and results of operations of the Company. |

 

 
|   | /s/ Richard E. Francis, Jr. |
|--------|----------------------------------|
|   | Richard E. Francis, Jr.     |
|   | Chief Executive Officer          |

 

 

Date: March 30,2009

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DERIC LaVELLE MAY, AIS # 209534, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-0479-WS-N

PAMELA BARBER, :

Defendant. :

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby 

DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of February, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00479-WS-N Document 4 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 1