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

<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0000842881
<NAME>                         GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II-E
                                
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                              622,367
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                     6,434,473
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  7,056,840
<PP&E>                           15,374,066
<DEPRECIATION>                   12,703,892
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   10,057,545
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               214,679
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                        9,779,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     10,057,545
<SALES>                             890,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  7,380,617
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       715,425
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   6,665,192
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               6,665,192
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      6,665,192
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         27.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0
        
 

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

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000833054
<NAME>                              GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LTD PSHP II-C

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                   332,162
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            346,224
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         678,386
<PP&E>                                 9,014,996
<DEPRECIATION>                         7,869,103
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         1,953,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     43,555
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                             1,856,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           1,953,943
<SALES>                                1,315,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,391,935
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            548,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          843,166
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      843,166
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             843,166
<EPS-BASIC>                                 4.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40205 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
LINO HERNANDEZ

- BENITEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:16

- CR

- 1310

- 1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lino Hernandez

Benitez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Hernandez

- Benitez h a s filed a motion for the appointment of new counsel . We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as Hernandez

-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40205 Document: 00514280284 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017No. 17

- 40205

2 Benitez’s motion . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous is sue for appellate review. To the extent Hernandez

Benitez asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his motion, t he record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of the claim ; we therefore decline to consider it without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. S ee 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Hernandez

- Benitez’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED. Case: 17-40205 Document: 00514280284 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
#### MYER v. LYFORD (TULLY, Third Party Defendant).

No. 851 Civil.

District Court, M. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 5, 1942.

Alfred E. Swoyer and Louis A. Fine, both of Honesdale, Pa., for plaintiff.

Paul Bedford, of Wilkes Barre, Pa., for defendant and third party plaintiff.

Lester R. Male, of Honesdale, Pa., and C. H. Welles, 3d, of Scranton, Pa., for third party defendant.

JOHNSON, District Judge.

After hearing arguments in open court on motion of John Tully, third party defendant, to dismiss the action as set forth in plaintiff’s amended complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff could have asserted no claim against the third party defend*508ant had he been joined originally as a defendant, and it appearing that John Tully, the third party defendant, was brought into this case by Frederic E. Lyford, Trustee of Property of New York, Ontario & Western Railway Company, defendant and third party plaintiff, thereby giving jurisdiction so as to enable the Court to dispose of the entire case on its merits at one trial and thereby avoid a multiplicity of trials, it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the motion to dismiss the action as against John Tully, third party defendant, is denied.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 358 

To ensure the safety of members of the United States Armed Forces while 

using expeditionary facilities, infrastructure, and equipment supporting 

United States military operations overseas. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 30, 2009 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. PRYOR, and Mrs. 

MCCASKILL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To ensure the safety of members of the United States Armed 

Forces while using expeditionary facilities, infrastructure, 

and equipment supporting United States military operations overseas. 

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 ‘‘Ensuring Safe Facili5 ties and Equipment for American Troops Overseas Act’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•S 358 IS

1 SEC. 2. CERTIFICATION OF SAFETY OF EXPEDITIONARY FA2 CILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND EQUIP3 MENT SUPPORTING UNITED STATES MILI4 TARY OPERATIONS OVERSEAS. 

5 (a) CERTIFICATION REQUIRED.—In order to ensure 

6 the safe utilization by the Armed Forces of expeditionary 

7 facilities, infrastructure, and equipment supporting 

8 United States military operations overseas, the Secretary 

9 of Defense shall certify to the congressional defense com10 mittees, by not later than 60 days after the date of the 

11 enactment of this Act, that each of the following actions 

12 have been accomplished: 

13 (1) That generally accepted industry standards 

14 for the safety of personnel are incorporated into 

15 military regulations establishing requirements for fa16 cilities, infrastructure, and equipment, including 

17 standards with respect to fire protection and struc18 tural integrity, and standards with respect to elec19 trical systems, water treatment, and telecommuni20 cation networks. 

21 (2) That each contract or task or delivery order 

22 carried out for the construction, installation, repair, 

23 maintenance, or operation of expeditionary facilities 

24 for the Armed Forces overseas incorporates gen25 erally accepted industry standards for the safety of 

26 personnel utilizing such facilities. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•S 358 IS

1 (3) That the standards required under para2 graphs (1) and (2) apply in all current and future 

3 United States military operations overseas. 

4 (b) CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES DE5 FINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘congressional defense 

6 committees’’ has the meaning given that term in section 

7 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### In the Matter of the Adoption of Roberto C., Jr., an Infant. Sharon W. et al., Respondents, v Roberto C., Sr., Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 901]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oneida County (Randal B. Caldwell, J.), entered May 7, 2012. The order, among other things, adjudged that the petition for the adoption of the subject child may proceed without the respondent’s consent.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD ALVARADO; JOHN

AZZAM; CHARLOTTE BOSWELL;

TANDA BROWN; BERTHA DUENAS,

 Plaintiffs,

CHARLES GIBBS; JANICE LEWIS;

MARIA MUNOZ; KEVIN NEELY;

LORE PAOGOFIE; DYRONN

THEODORE; LASONIA WALKER;

CHRISTOPHER WILKERSON,

 Plaintiffs,

 and

PERNELL EVANS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a

Delaware corporation, DBA Fedex

Express,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-16545

D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00098-SI

MEMORANDUM *

FILED

JUN 16 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 12, 2010

San Francisco, California

Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Pernell Evans appeals the denial of his motion for extension of time

to file a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party

moves within 30 days after expiration of the appeal period and “shows excusable

neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). In Lemoge v. United States,

587 F.3d 1188, 1192, 1194-96 (9th Cir. 2009), we held that a district court making

an excusable neglect determination abused its discretion when it failed, inter alia,

to consider each of the four explicit Pioneer factors as well as the prejudice the

moving party would suffer if its motion was denied. Because we decided Lemoge

after the district court’s decision in this case, we vacate and remand to allow that

court to reconsider in light of Lemoge.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13911]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,856]


V & E Components, Inc., High Point, NC; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 28, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers of V & E Components, 
Inc., High Point, North Carolina.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of May 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13911 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00092-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.L.E., a Child

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018PA01712

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Order Granting 

Adoption is AFFIRMED. 

We order that appellees Sheila Husted and Inez Martinez recover their costs of appeal from 

appellants Morgan Ellis and Colleen Ellis. 

SIGNED April 15, 2020.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-D  ("Issuer") for the period
ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 13th day of August, 2004.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-D
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-D and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-D and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Messages about Borderline Personality Disorder

Follow the NIMH Director on **

How Aware Are We, Really, About Mental Illness? 
                                                                      By Joshua Gordon on                May 29, 2018

In a message on the importance of mental health awareness, Dr. Gordon recounts how he came to be aware of the personal impact of mental illnesses.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Mingo, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 889]

Application by the ppellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated May 29, 1984 *(People v Mingo,*101 AD2d 1031 [1984]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 26, 1983.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Mastro, J.E, Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 24

                              POWER OF ATTORNEY
                              -----------------

        KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that each of the undersigned, an officer
or director, or both, of AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
does hereby constitute and appoint HERBERT F. SMITH or LAILA B. SOARES with
full power of substitution to said attorney, as the true and lawful attorney
and agent of the undersigned, to do any and all acts and things and to execute
any and all instruments which said attorney and agent deems advisable, of AVCO
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. to comply with the Securities Act of 1934, as amended,
and any requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
thereto in connection with the filing under the Securities Act of 1934 of an
Annual Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on Form 10-K for the 1996 year of AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., as well
as any and all amendments to said Report, including specifically, but without
limitation of the authority hereby granted, the power and authority to sign his
or her name as an officer or director, or both, of AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., as indicated opposite his or her signature below, to said Report, and any
such amendments, and each of the undersigned does fully ratify and confirm all
that said attorney, or any of them, or the substitute of any of them, shall do
or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has subscribed these
presents this 19th day of February, 1997.
              


      /s/ L. B. CAMPBELL                    Director
---------------------------------           
          L. B. Campbell

      /s/ J. F. HARDYMON                    Director
---------------------------------
          J. F. Hardymon

    /s/ S. A. GILIOTTI                      Director
---------------------------------              
        S. A. Giliotti   

     /s/ W. W. JUCHATZ                      Director
---------------------------------       
         W. W. JUCHATZ

       /s/ S. L. KEY                        Director
---------------------------------          
           S. L. Key 

       /s/ R. A. WATSON                     Director
---------------------------------
           R. A. Watson

                                     S-5
By U.S. mJ.1il and enuiil 

Kent Richey, Partner 

Faegre Baker Daniels 

2200 Wells Fargo Center 

90 South Seventh Street 

Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 

November 20, 2014 

Re: Rev iew of financing documents for the Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu 

Indians of California 

Dear Mr. Richey: 

This letter responds to your October 7, 2014 request on behalf of the Wells Fargo 

Bank, NA and the Mooretown Ranchcria for the National Indian Gaming Commission's 

Office of General Counsel to review financing agreements between the parties. 

Specifically1 you have asked for my opinion whether the documents are management 

contracts requiring the NIGC Chair's approval under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act. You also asked for my. opinion whether the financing documents violate IGRA's 

requirement that the Tribe have the sole proprietary interest in its gaming activity. 

In my review, [considered the following submissions (collectively, ''the 

Financing Documents") all of which are unexecuted, but were represented to be in 

substantially final form: -

• Loan Agreement (Doc. No_ US.54544848.07, NIGC Draft 10-7-14) 

• Revolving Note, Exhibit B to loan Agreement (Doc. No. US. 54544:848.07) 

• Security Agreement (Doc. No. US.54545046.03, NIGC Draft 10-7-14) 

The Financing Documents contain terms similar to other agreements the Office of 

General Counsel has already reviewed and analyzed. See 

WWW. nigc .gov I Reading_Room/Management_Review - r .etters.aspx. Applying the 

same analysis here, it is my opinion that the Financing Documents are not management 

4 •,,~'I • : "• • I' • 
Moorctown Rancheria 

Page 2 of 2 

contracts and do not require the approval of the NIGC Chair. ft is also my opinion that 

they do not violRte JGRA's sole proprietary interest requirement. 

It is my understanding that the drafts are represented to be in substantially final 

form, dnd if the Financing Documents change in any material way prior to closing or 

are inconsistent with assumptions made herein, this opinion shall not apply. Further, 

this opinion is limited to the Financing Documents listed above. This opinion does not 

include or extend to any other agreements not submitted for review. 

I anticipate that this letter will be the subject of Freedom of Information Act 

(FOf A) requests. Since we believe that some of the information in this letter may fall 

within FOIA exemption J (25 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4)), which appUes to commercial or 

finctncial information that is privileged or confidential, the release of which could cause 

substantial harm, f ask that you provide me with your views regarding release within 

ten days. 

If you have any questions, please contact NIGC Staff Attorney Jennifer Lawson 

at (202) 6:12-7003. 

Sincerely, 

~: ,-----; L-z__t__:_ __ 

Eric Shepard 

Acting General Counsel 

cc: Frank Lawrence, counsel for Mooretown Rancheria
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Banta Corporation of our reports dated
February 7, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Banta
Corporation, Banta Corporation managements assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Banta Corporation, included in the 2004 Annual Report to
Shareholders of Banta Corporation.

Our audits also included the
financial statement schedule of Banta Corporation listed in Item 15(a). This schedule
is the responsibility of Banta Corporations management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as
a whole, present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-40036, 33-54576, 33-61683,
333-01289, 333-68604 and 333-35530) pertaining to Banta Corporation and in the related prospectuses
thereto, of our reports dated February 7, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Banta Corporation, Banta Corporation managements
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Banta Corporation, included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 1, 2005.

ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Milwaukee, WisconsinMarch
11, 2005