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

<ARTICLE> 7
<CIK> 0000823533
<NAME> FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,971,427
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      92,104
<MORTGAGE>                                     580,726
<REAL-ESTATE>                                   25,536
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,883,291
<CASH>                                         (30,488)
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              12,168
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         262,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,621,615
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,390,760
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             11,491
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 221,784
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            8,230
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     667,286
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,621,615
<PREMIUMS>                                   1,091,752
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            151,921
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               9,499 
<OTHER-INCOME>                                  24,844
<BENEFITS>                                     945,963
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     30,026
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           257,026
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,209 
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,773 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,436 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,436 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                               2,342,562
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Gaming Revenues by Region

Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Revenue

Operations Revenues Operations Revenues Operations Revenues Percentage

Portland 52 $3,022,108 51 $2,926,984 1 $95,125 3.2%

Sacramento 71 $7,881,104 68 $7,298,080 3 $583,024 8.0%

Phoenix 53 $2,807,744 48 $2,707,604 5 $100,140 3.7%

St. Paul 134 $4,829,181 130 $4,675,334 4 $153,847 3.3%

Tulsa 68 $2,206,538 67 $2,071,136 1 $135,403 6.5%

OK City 65 $2,141,567 65 $2,007,339 0 $134,229 6.7%

Washington DC 31 $6,993,501 30 $6,772,834 1 $220,667 3.3%

Totals 474 $29,881,744 459 $28,459,310 15 $1,422,435 5.0%

Portland Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Sacramento California, and Northern Nevada

Phoenix Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Southern Nevada.

St. Paul Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming

Tulsa Kansas, and Eastern Oklahoma.

OK City Western Oklahoma and Texas.

Washington DC Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and New York.

Source: Compiled from gaming operation audited financial statements received by the NIGC through June 30, 2016.

National Indian Gaming Commission

Tribal Gaming Revenues (in thousands) by Region

Fiscal Year 2015 and 2014

Fiscal Year 2015 Fiscal Year 2014 Increase (decrease)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              29
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      508
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         19
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   787
<PP&E>                                           5,604
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,936
<BONDS>                                          1,519
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        300
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,901
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,648
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,016
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     98
<INCOME-TAX>                                        32
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 66
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                         (13)
<NET-INCOME>                                        53
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>Not separately identified in the Consolidated Financial Statements or
accompanying notes thereto.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00003-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.M.-H., a Child

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-00209

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 6, 2015

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal.1

 We grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1). We order that no costs be assessed against appellant because he is indigent. 

PER CURIAM

1 This is an appeal from the associate judge’s order terminating appellant’s rights to his child. After the order of 

termination was rendered, appellant not only filed a notice of appeal, but sought de novo review in the district court

as permitted under the Texas Family Code. After review, the district court reformed the order of termination, reversing 

the associate judge’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights to his child. Accordingly, the appeal from the order 

of termination is unnecessary as appellant obtained relief during the de novo review process.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3266 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3266

  To ensure the availability of loan guarantees for rural homeowners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 27, 2010

  Mr. Bennet introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To ensure the availability of loan guarantees for rural homeowners.

    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 ``Rural Housing Preservation and 
Stabilization Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. LOAN GUARANTEE FEES.

    (a) Fees.--
            (1) Up-front fees.--Paragraph (8) of section 502(h) of the 
        Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(h)(8)) is amended to read 
        as follows:
            ``(8) Guarantee fees.--With respect to a guaranteed loan 
        under this subsection, the Secretary may collect from the 
        lender, at the time of issuance of the guarantee, a fee equal 
        to not more than 4.05 percent of the principal obligation of 
        the loan, as determined sufficient by the Secretary to cover 
        the costs (as such term is defined in section 502 of the 
        Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) of loan 
        guarantees under this subsection.''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 739 of the Agriculture, 
        Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
        Agencies Appropriation Act, 2001 (as enacted by Public Law 106-
        387; 114 Stat. 1549A-34) is hereby repealed.
    (b) Authorization of Amount of Loan Guarantees.--Section 513 of the 
Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1483) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
    ``(f) Authorization for Loan Guarantees.--The Secretary may, to the 
extent approved in appropriation Acts, guarantee loans under section 
502(h) in aggregate amounts not to exceed $30,000,000,000 for fiscal 
year 2010.''.

SEC. 3. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 
with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional 
Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
Representatives, provided that such statement has been submitted prior 
to the vote on passage.
                                 <all>
```
96-119.

#### State v. Taylor.

Cuyahoga App. No. 65711. Upon consideration of the motion filed by counsel for appellant for stay of execution in the above-styled cause pending the exhaustion of state post-conviction remedies, and it appearing from the exhibits to the motion that a petition for post-conviction relief has been filed by appellant with the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that said motion be, and the same is hereby, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that execution of sentence be, and the same is hereby, stayed, pending the exhaustion of all proceedings for post-conviction relief before courts of this state, including any appeals.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for the appellant and for the appellee shall notify this court when all proceedings for post-conviction relief before courts of this state have been exhausted.
{"agency":"NIGC","generated":"2018-07-30 15:13:11","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"}],"value":"2018"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["NIGC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["16"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["9"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["8"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2018","quarter":"Q3"}
Exhibit 10.8

                                 August 16, 1996


Mr. William L. Stewart
Paradise Valley, AZ  85253

Dear Bill,

As a result of our meeting on Tuesday,  July 23,  1996,  I am pleased to provide
you with a summary of the compensation and retirement benefit  enhancements that
we agreed upon.

Base Salary:
------------
Your base salary will be increased by $100,000 effective July 23, 1996. Your new
base salary will be $410,026.

Incentive Pay Plan:
-------------------
You will  continue to be a  participant  in the  Officers  Incentive  Plan as an
Executive Vice President, with an incentive opportunity ranging from 0% - 52% of
base pay.

Retirement:
-----------
Your  retirement  benefit will be  calculated  by adding a base amount of 20% of
your average  monthly wage (as determined by the highest 36 consecutive  months)
and 10% of your average  monthly wage for each year of service.  You will become
vested in this  benefit  when you have  accrued  four  years  and 1000  hours of
service  (November  1998).  The  maximum  benefit you can accrue is 100% of your
average  monthly  wage.  Under this  schedule,  you will qualify for the maximum
benefit in November 2001.  Please note,  this  retirement  benefit  replaces our
previous agreement outlined in your offer letter dated December 21, 1993.

Restricted Stock:
-----------------
You will receive two thousand shares of restricted  stock for each calendar year
you are actively  employed at APS  retroactive to 1994. This results in an award
of four thousand shares to be issued as soon as possible.  Each subsequent years
award  will be made in the last  quarter  of each year and will be  provided  in
addition  to any other stock award you  receive  under the  Pinnacle  West Stock
Option and Restricted Stock Program.
<PAGE>
Home Purchase:
--------------
The Company will  purchase  your home at its market value and you may live there
for the  remainder of your  employment at APS. You will be  responsible  for any
personal income taxes due to this arrangement.

Should you have any  questions  regarding any of the above  information,  please
feel free to contact Armando Flores who will implement all of the above actions.

Sincerely,


WILLIAM J. POST
-----------------------------------
William J. Post
Chief Operating Officer
Arizona Public Service Company





The foregoing is agreed to and accepted:


WILLIAM L. STEWART
----------------------------------
William L. Stewart
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 Arabian American Development Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Connie Cook, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
  
  
  
 /s/ Connie Cook
 Connie Cook, Chief Accounting Officer
  March 18, 2011
  
  
  
  A signed original 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.
#### Lynn & Cahill, *LLP,*Respondent, v Nadine Witkin, Appellant.

Submitted April 8, 2013;

decided June 6, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
96-142.

#### In re Resignation of Lange.

IT IS ORDERED by this court, *sua sponte,*effective May 7, 1997, that William Cyril Lange, Attorney Registration No. 0005162, last known address in Cincinnati, Ohio, is found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s order of February 12, 1996, to wit: failure to surrender his Certificate of Admission and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before March 13, 1996.
[Cite as State v. Burns , 2022-Ohio-250.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE D ISTRICT OF OHIO

WARREN COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,

- vs -

SHANE BURNS, Appellant. :

:

:

:

:

: CASE NO. CA2021-09-081

D E C I S I O N 1/31/2022

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN CO UNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 21CR37664

David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, for app ellee. Ostrowski Law Firm Co., L.P.A ., and Andrea G. Ostrowski, for ap pellant.

Per Curiam. {¶1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal fil ed by appellant, Shane Burns, the transcript of the docket and journa l entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶2} Appellant's counsel has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v.

California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review ofWarren CA2021-09-081 the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any err ors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record i ndependently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and wit hout infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) requests permission to w ithdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellan t. {¶3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no res ponse having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the trial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and this appeal i s dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

M. POWELL, P.J., PIPER and BYRNE, JJ., concur.
Motion GRANTED and Order filed February 24, 2021. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-21-00079-CV

____________

IN RE BUILDERS EQUIPMENT & TOOL COMPANY D/B/A BETCO AND 

MIRANDA ELISE FLORES, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-64640

ORDER

On February 10, 2021, relators Builders Equipment & Tool Company d/b/a 

BETCO and Miranda Elise Flores, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. 

Relators ask this court to order the Honorable Jeralyn Manor, Judge of the 80th 

District Court, in Harris County, Texas, to set aside her January 27, 2021 order 

granting real parties in interest’s motion to quash deposition on written questions 
2

and subpoena entered in trial court number 2019-64640, styled Tammy Lanier, et al. 

v. Miranda Elise Flores, et al. 

Relators have also filed a motion for temporary stay of proceedings below. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On February 10, 2021, relators ask this court to 

stay proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the petition for writ of 

mandamus.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relators’ request 

for relief requires further consideration and that relators will be prejudiced unless 

immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relators’ motion and 

issue the following order:

We ORDER discovery related to damages, including depositions of all 

damage experts, and the commencement of trial in trial court cause number 2019-

64640, Tammy Lanier, et al. v. Miranda Elise Flores, et al., STAYED until a final 

decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further 

order of this court.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Hassan.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel A. VOGEL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6975.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 6, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 3, 2006.

*214Daniel A. Vogel, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Daniel A. Vogel, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying Vogel’s petition for writ of error coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Vogel,*No. 2:91-cr-00440-DCN, 2006 WL 1074899 (D.S.C. Apr. 20, 2006). 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.*
*Thursday, April 10, 1997*

MOTION DOCKET

94-1777.

#### State v. Dunlap.

Hamilton App. No. C-930121. This cause came on for further consideration upon appellant’s emergency motion to transfer appellant from Idaho Maximum Security Institution in Idaho to the Mansfield Correctional Institution in Mansfield, Ohio. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the emergency motion to transfer appellant be, and hereby is, denied.
RECONSIDERATION DOCKET

96-2742.

#### State v. Greene.

Scioto App. No. 94CA2297. Reported at 78 Ohio St.3d 1420, 676 N.E.2d 123. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.