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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                         354,864
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,382,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                   688,475
<INVENTORY>                                 15,355,018
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,156,185
<PP&E>                                       7,374,193
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,709,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              60,588,092
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,773,446
<BONDS>                                      6,966,659
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          152,220
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,515,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                60,588,092
<SALES>                                     38,004,627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            38,004,627
<CGS>                                       30,670,850
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,670,850
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                24,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              99,739
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                376,836
<INCOME-TAX>                                   158,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            218,536
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   218,536
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v George T. Cotton, Appellant.

[— NYS2d —]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Whalen and Martoche, JJ.
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

The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may not be relied upon or used
for any other purposes.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Access
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephen B. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge (1) the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

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

Signed at the City of  Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 14th
day of November, 2005.

/s/ Stephen B. Thompson
-----------------------
Stephen B. Thompson
Chief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2174 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. Department 

of Interior, Oil Spill Research 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 Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for U.S. 

Department of Interior, Oil Spill Research 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 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, OIL SPILL 

5 RESEARCH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise availVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:18 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2174.IH H2174

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2174 IH

1 able for U.S. Department of Interior, Oil Spill Research 

2 for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $14,899,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2086

___________

Cyrill Athanasios Kolocotronis, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Missouri.

Social Security Administrator, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 28,1997

 Filed: May 13, 1997

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Cyrill A. Kolocotronis brought this action in the district court

alleging that he was improperly deprived of Social Security benefits while

he was involuntarily detained as a state mental patient. The district

court determined that the claim was frivolous and dismissed the complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), finding that Kolocotronis as an

individual confined in a penal institution on a felony conviction was not

entitled to Social Security benefits. See Order dated February 3, 1997.

The court in a subsequent order dated March 18, 1997, found that

Kolocotronis was not an incarcerated felon after all because he was

actually found not guilty because of his mental state at the time of the

alleged offense. After this later finding, the court 
-2-

did not, however, revisit the issue of whether the claim was frivolous.

This should have been done. We, therefore, remand this matter to the

district court for further consideration in view of its holding of March

18, 1997.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Jose Mariano VELAZQUEZ; Maria Ambiez De Velazquez; Claudia I. Velazquez; Mariana Velazquez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 03-73794.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 20, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 30, 2006.

Zaheer Zaidi, Esq., Elia Law Firm, San Jose, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice David V. Ber-nal, Attorney, Margaret K. Taylor, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, O’SCANNLAIN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioners, Jose Mariano Velazquez (“Mr.Velazquez”), Maria Ambriz de Velazquez, Claudia Velazquez-Ambriz, and Mariana Velazquez-Ambriz, appeal a final order issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Petitioners argue that the revocation of Mr. Velazquez’s visa, or alternatively, the denial of his visa reinstatement claim, was improper because the Immigration and Naturalization Service mishandled Mr. Velazquez’s father’s residency documents from 1981 to 1986. We deny the petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review Petitioners’ visa reinstatement claim because this appeal stems from a removal proceeding. Although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) gives this court jurisdiction to review “final order[s] of removal” from the BIA, this jurisdiction does not extend to collateral matters, such as matters relating to the approval and withdrawal of visa petitions. *See Elbez v. I.N.S.,*767 F.2d 1313, 1314 (9th Cir.1985).

In addition, Petitioners’ visa and estop-pel claims are precluded by the doctrines of *res judicata*and collateral estoppel. *See Kourtis v. Cameron,*419 F.3d 989, 994 (9th Cir.2005) (collateral estoppel); *Tahoe-Sierra v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency,*322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir.2003) (res *judicata).*We have rejected Petitioners’ claims in previous cases. *Velazquez v. De-more,*59 FedAppx. 984 (9th Cir.2003); *Velazquez v. U.S. Dept’ of Justice,*Nos. 99-16001, 99-17473, 2000 WL 1032983 (9th Cir. July 17, 2000).

DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00 301

- CR EX PARTE Erica HAYWOOD Original Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: May 11, 2011
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DENIED On April 25, 2011, relator Erica Haywood filed an original petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court. However, as an intermediate court of appeals this court is not authorized to grant the relief requested. Pursuant to section 22.221(d) of the Texas Government Code, in civil
matters, a court o f appeals “may issue a writ of habeas corpus when it appears that the restraint of liberty is by virtue of an order, process, or commitment issued by a court or judge because of the violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made, rendered, or e ntered by the court or judge in a civil case.” T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 22.221(d) (West 2004). However, in criminal matters, a court of appeals has no original habeas corpus jurisdiction. Watson v. State , 96 S.W.3d 497, 500 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2002, pet. ref’d); Dodson v. State , 988 S.W.2d 833,

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. NM102293 , in the 399 th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez

- Gardner presiding

.04

- 1 1

- 00 301

- CR

- 2

- 835 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1999, no pet.). In criminal matters, the courts authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus are the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, and the county courts. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.05 (West 2005). Therefore, we dismiss this petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack of jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
  FORM 8-K  CURRENT REPORT  Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934  Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)
    
    NOVEMBER 29, 2004
  NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITED    CANADA(State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)
    
    000-30758(CommissionFile Number)
    
    62-12-62580(IRS EmployerIdentification No.)8200 DIXIE ROAD, SUITE 100, BRAMPTON, ONTARIO, CANADA(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    L6T 5P6(Zip Code)
  Registrants telephone number, including area code
    
    905-863-0000
      Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the
filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



##### 



Item 8.01     Other Events On November 24, 2004, Nortel Networks Corporation issued the press release attached hereto as
Exhibit 99.1, and such press release is incorporated by reference herein (other than information
included on or linked from the registrants website, referenced in such release, which is not
incorporated by reference into this report). Nortel Networks Corporation owns all of the registrants common shares and the registrant is Nortel
Networks Corporations principal direct operating subsidiary. Item 9.01     Financial Statements and Exhibits  (c)
    
    Exhibits  99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on November 29, 2004.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly
caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized. NORTEL NETWORKS LIMITEDBy:
    /s/ Nicholas J. DeRomaNicholas J. DeRomaChief Legal OfficerBy:
    /s/ Gordon A. DaviesGordon A. DaviesAssistant Secretary Dated: November 30, 2004




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit No.
    
    Description99.1
    
    Press Release issued by Nortel Networks Corporation on November 29, 2004.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2392 

To require a seven-day waiting period before the receipt of a firearm. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Ms. SLOTKIN (for herself, Ms. KUSTER, and Mr. TRONE) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require a seven-day waiting period before the receipt 

of a firearm. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pause for Gun Safety 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. 7-DAY WAITING PERIOD REQUIRED BEFORE THE 

7 RECEIPT OF A FIREARM. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION.—Section 922 of title 18, United 

9 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2392 IH

1 ‘‘(aa)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person, in or 

2 affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to transfer a fire3 arm to a person not licensed under this chapter unless 

4 at least 7 calendar days have elapsed since the transferee 

5 most recently offered to take possession of the firearm. 

6 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a temporary 

7 transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the 

8 transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime 

9 or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or 

10 Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the trans11 feree’s possession of the firearm is exclusively— 

12 ‘‘(A) at a shooting range or in a shooting gal13 lery or other area designated for the purpose of tar14 get shooting; 

15 ‘‘(B) while reasonably necessary for the pur16 poses of hunting, trapping, pest control on a farm 

17 or ranch, or fishing, if the transferor— 

18 ‘‘(i) has no reason to believe that the 

19 transferee intends to use the firearm in a place 

20 where it is illegal; and 

21 ‘‘(ii) has reason to believe that the trans22 feree will comply with all licensing and permit 

23 requirements for such hunting, trapping, pest 

24 control on a farm or ranch, or fishing; or 

25 ‘‘(C) while in the presence of the transferor.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 2392 IH

1 (b) PENALTIES.—Section 924(a) of such title is 

2 amended by adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) 

4 shall be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned not 

5 more than 5 years, or both.’’. 

6 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

7 The amendments made by this Act shall apply to con8 duct engaged in after the 90-day period that begins with 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### Sunflower River Packet Co. *v.*Georgia Pac. R. Co.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. Mississippi, W. D.*

July Term, 1889.)

Federal Courts—Jurisdiction—Navigable Waters.

The federal courts have jurisdiction of an action by a steam-boat company to recover damages of a railroad company for obstructing a navigable river of the United States by building a bridge across it, regardless of the citizenship of the parties.

At Law. Motion to dismiss.

*Albert M. Lea,*for plaintiff.

*Yerger & Percy,*for defendant.

Hill, J.

This is a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant to recover damages for the obstruction to the navigation on Sunflower river, by placing a bridge across said stream. The declaration alleges that the Sunflower river is one of the navigable streams of the United States, and has long been used as such for the transportation of persons and freights on steam-boats plying upon said river for many miles above the point where said bridge is built, and that the plaintiff, as a corporation created under the laws of this state, is engaged in transporting persons and freight upon steam-boats from the port of Vicksburg to points on said Sunflower River as high as the same is navigable, and that its boats are duly enrolled and licensed for the coasting trade, conformably with the provisions of title 50 of the Revised Statutes of the United States; that the defendant corporation obtained an act of the congress of the United States to place a bridge across said river, provided it should not interfere with the navigation by steam-boats upon said river; that the defendant, in the'construction of said bridge, has so constructed *230it that it does prevent and obstruct the plaintiff from running its steamboats above and beyond said bridge, to the damage, of the plaintiff the sum of $5,000. The defendant moves the court to dismiss the suit for the want of jurisdiction in this court to try and determine the controversy between the parties, upon the ground that both the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of this state, and that there is no federal question involved in the suit, as shown by the declaration. Whether there is or is not such federal question is the only question now to be determined.

It is not controverted that the Sunflower river is one of the navigable water-courses of the United States, and was so used at the point where said bridge has been built across said river, and for a considerable distance above said point, and was before the construction of said bridge navigated by plaintiffs, by their steam-boats, under a license from the United States. This right and privilege is certainly derived from the United States; and, for any unlawful obstruction or interference with the right to navigate the said river, this court certainly has the jurisdiction to try and determine the injuries done the plaintiff, and afford the proper remedy, if established as alleged in the declaration. I am satisfied that this court has full jurisdiction of the controversy stated in the pleadings, and that the motion to dismiss the cause must be overruled, and it will be so ordered.
TIMOTHY JEROME LOWE

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1410

____ _________________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Ross Goodman , Judge

.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Mark Graham Hanson, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pame la Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON

, WETHERELL

, and SWANSON

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 10, 2015

a0603

Order 

Clerk

June 10, 2015

150088 & (17)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150088

COA: 322379

Wayne CC: 00-008061-FC

WILLIAM CLEMENS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issue is GRANTED. The application for 

leave to appeal the August 11, 2014 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is 

DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 

6.502(G).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
10-Q FOR PRIMA ENERGY CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       8,515,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,357,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,274,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (44,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    443,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,638,000
<PP&E>                                      50,804,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (22,730,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,290,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,099,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        58,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,343,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,290,000
<SALES>                                     15,484,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,358,000
<CGS>                                       10,025,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,025,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,825,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,357,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,468,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,468,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14
        

</TABLE>