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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                 PRO-FORMA
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      661,419
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    267,772
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          84,293
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        21,121
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,034,605
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            220,623<F1>
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           477,869
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   29,700
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 306,413
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,034,605
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      200,234
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                 0
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     176,603
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     176,603
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         23,631
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,739
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  25,370
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        21,116
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,254
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       21,160
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          49,797
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>OLD DOMINION IS ORGANIZED AND OPERATED AS A COOPERATIVE. PATRONAGE
CAPITAL IS THE RETAINED NET MARGINS OF OLD DOMINION WHICH HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED
TO ITS MEMBERS BASED ON THEIR RESPECTIVE POWER PURCHASE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH OLD DOMINON'S BYLAWS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
** **

**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of International Fight League, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Salvatore A. Bucci,Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President and Treasurer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)                    The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)                    Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presentedand the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periodspresented.
| Dated: May 15, 2007                               |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                              |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| /s/ Salvatore A. Bucci                            |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Salvatore A. Bucci                                |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| and Treasurer                                     |   |   |   |   |   |   |

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


                         CONSENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS
                                        


April 7, 1999

The Wiser Oil Company
8115 Preston Road, Suite 400
Dallas, Texas 75225

Gentlemen:

  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-44171, 33-62441, 33-44172, 333-22525, and 333-
15083) relating to the stock incentive plans of The Wiser Oil Company
(theCompany) of our reserves estimates included in the Annual Report on Form 10-
K (the Annual Report) of the Company for the year ended December 31, 1998, and
to the references to our firm included in the Annual Report. Our estimates of
the oil, condensate, natural gas liquids (shown collectively as "Oil and NGL"),
and natural gas reserves of certain properties owned by the Company are
contained in our report entitled "Appraisal Report as of December 31, 1998 on
Certain Properties owned by the Wiser Oil Company-Proved Reserves". Reserves
estimates from our report are included in the sections "Principal Oil and Gas
Properties," "Oil and Gas Reserves," and "Supplemental Financial Information for
the years ending December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 (unaudited)-Oil and Gas
Reserves." Also included in the third section mentioned above are reserves
estimates from our "Appraisal Report as of December 31, 1995 on Certain
Properties owned by the Wiser Oil Company--Proved Reserves," our "Appraisal
Report as of December 31, 1995, on Certain Properties owned by Maljamar Wiser
Inc.," our "Appraisal Report as of December 31, 1996, on Certain Properties
owned by Maljamar Wiser Inc.," our "Appraisal Report as of December 31, 1996, on
Certain Properties owned by The Wiser Oil Company--Proved Reserves, and our
"Appraisal Report as of December 31, 1997 on Certain Properties owned by The
Wiser Oil Company-Proved Reserves." In the sections "Summary Reserve and
Operating Data" and "Oil and Gas Reserves," estimates of reserves, revenue, and
discounted present worth set forth in our above mentioned reports have been
combined with estimates of reserves, revenue, and discounted present worth
prepared by another petroleum consultant. We are necessarily unable to verify
the accuracy of the reserves, revenue, and present worth values contained in the
Annual Report when our estimates have been combined with those of another firm.

                      Very truly yours,

 
                      /S/ DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON

                      DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3479 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3479

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow unpopulated census 
 tracts that are contiguous to low-income communities to be treated as 
        low-income communities under the new markets tax credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 17, 2016

 Mr. Menendez introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow unpopulated census 
 tracts that are contiguous to low-income communities to be treated as 
        low-income communities under the new markets tax credit.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN UNPOPULATED CENSUS TRACTS UNDER NEW 
              MARKETS TAX CREDIT.

    (a) In General.--Section 45D(e)(4)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``is within'' and inserting ``is--
                            ``(i) within'',
            (2) by striking ``and'' at the end and inserting ``or'', 
        and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(ii) a census tract with a population of 
                        zero, and''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to investments made after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Nicor
        Gas
        Company
 Form
        10-K
 Exhibit
        10.05





FIRST
      AMENDMENT TO THE


NICOR
      GAS SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT PLAN








WHEREAS,
      Northern Illinois Gas Company (doing business as Nicor Gas Company) (the
“Company”), established and maintains the Nicor
      Gas
      Supplementary Retirement Plan (“SRET”)





WHEREAS,
      amendment of the SRET is desirable to ease the administrative burden of the
      SRET
      with respect to retirements occurring in 2005 under the transition rules set
      forth in IRS Notice 2005-1 with respect to Section 409A of the Internal Revenue
      Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 409A”)





NOW,
      THEREFORE, pursuant
      to the power and authority reserved to the Company pursuant to Section 4.1
      of
      the SRET and delegated to the undersigned officer by resolution dated November
      17, 2005 the SRET is hereby amended, effective as January
      1, 2005 by adding the following Section 3.7:





“3.7  Section
      409A Distributions in 2005 .
      Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.3, and in accordance with IRS Notice
      2005-1, each Participant who retires from the Company and its affiliates in
      calendar year 2005 shall be permitted to take a distribution in a lump sum
      of
      any benefits such Participant accrues from January 1, 2005 through the date
      of
      retirement.”







IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized officer has caused this First Amendment
      to
      be executed on this 15 th day of
      December, 2005.








**NORTHERN
      ILLINOIS GAS COMPANY**








By: /s/
      CLAUDIA J. COLALILLO


Claudia
      J. Colalillo


Its:
      Senior Vice President, Human Resources and Customer
      Care
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 12a0715n.06

Case No. 11-3113

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

HARVEST INSTITUTE FREEDMAN

FEDERATION, LLC; LEATRICE

TANNER-BROWN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE

HONORABLE KEN SALAZAR, SECRETARY

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR OF THE

UNITED STATES,

Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge; QUIST, District

Judge.*

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Chief Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Harvest Institute

Freedman Federation and Leatrice Tanner-Brown want the federal courts to hold that the Claims

Resolution Act, No. 111-291, 124 Stat. 3064 (2010) (“the Act”), is unconstitutional because it

perpetuates racial discrimination against formerslaves—known as the Freedmen—of certain Native

American tribes. Congress enacted the Act to implement the settlement between the parties in

Cobell v. Salazar, No. 1:96CV01285-JR (D.D.C.), which was a class-action lawsuit brought by a

number of individual Native Americans against the Secretaries of the Departments of the Interior and

The Honorable Gordon Jay Quist, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting

*

by designation.
No. 11-3113, Harvest Institute, et al. v. United States, et al.

of the Treasury. The class in Cobell claimed that the United States had breached its fiduciary duty

to administer properly the Individual Indian Money (IIM) Accounts held on the behalf of certain

Native Americans.

The Harvest plaintiffs claim that the Freedmen were wrongfully excluded from ownership

of the IIM Accounts due to racism, and that it perpetuates racial discrimination for Congress to not

address their claims at the same time that it addresses the claims of the Cobell class. Along with

their Complaint, the Harvest plaintiffs moved the district court for a temporary restraining order; the

United States responded by filing Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss based on lack of

subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, respectively.

The district court dismissed the case, holding that the Harvest plaintiffs did not have standing

because any injury to them is not fairly traceable to the United States and because the injury will not

be redressed by a favorable decision. The Harvest plaintiffs timely appealed.

After carefully reviewing the district court’s opinion, the briefs, and the record in this case,

we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing the case. As the district court correctly

set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law to the undisputed material facts contained

in the record, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no jurisprudential purpose.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’swell-reasoned opinion, we AFFIRM

the judgment of the district court.

2
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 275

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 22) proposing 

a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2003

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. 

Res. 22) proposing a balanced budget amendment to 

the Constitution of the United States.

1 Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this res2 olution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 

3 XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of 

4 the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 22) proposing a 

6 balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the 

7 United States. General debate shall be confined to the 

8 joint resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally di9 vided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minor10 ity member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After gen-
2

•HRES 275 IH 

1 eral debate the joint resolution shall be considered for 

2 amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion 

3 of consideration of the joint resolution for amendment the 

4 Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the 

5 House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 

6 The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 

7 the joint resolution and amendments thereto to final pas8 sage without intervening motion except one motion to re9 commit with or without instructions. 

10 SEC. 2. If the Committee of the Whole rises and re11 ports that it has come to no resolution on the joint resolu12 tion, then on the next legislative day the House shall, im13 mediately after the third daily order of business under 

14 clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 

15 Whole for further consideration of the joint resolution.

Æ
#### Willie MUNN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Sheriff Danny MARTIN, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-3580.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 18, 2013.

Filed: April 22, 2013.

Willie Munn, Grady, AR, pro se.

Clyde Burt Newell, Nicholas Rudolph Windle, Bachelor & Newell, Hot Springs, AR, for Defendantr-Appellee.

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Willie Munn appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review, *see Lieffort v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co.,*702 F.3d 1055, 1057 (8th Cir.2013), we find no basis for reversal.

First, Munn’s periods of detention at the county facility — about 16 hours on one occasion and about 22 hours on another— were too brief to support his conditions— of-confinement claims. *See Beaulieu v. Ludeman,*690 F.3d 1017, 1045 (8th Cir.2012) (to establish constitutional violation for conditions of confinement, plaintiff must show conditions posed substantial risk of serious harm and defendant knew of but disregarded that risk); *Smith v. Copeland,*87 F.3d 265, 268-69 (8th Cir.1996) (length of time prisoner is subjected to harsh conditions is critical factor in analysis). Second, the evidence showed that the detention facility had policies in place providing for certain required services, contrary to Munn’s conclusory allegations. *See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (conclusory statements and threadbare recitals of claim elements are insufficient to state claim). Third, Munn did not explain how Sheriff Danny Martin was involved in any alleged denial of medication or medical care, *see Stone v. Harry,*364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004) (while construed liberally, pro se complaint must allege sufficient facts supporting claims advanced; court will not construct legal theory using facts not pleaded), and the evidence showed that Munn received his medications while he was at the detention facility.

Accordingly, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted. We modify the judgment to clarify that the dismissal of this action does not count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), *see Williams v. Lehman,*111 Fed.Appx. 852, 852 (8th Cir.2004) (unpublished per cu-riam) (case resolved though summary judgment does not constitute § 1915(g) “strike”), and we affirm the judgment as modified.

1

. The Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00863-CR

EX PARTE JOSE ISABEL MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-cvk-001615-D2

Honorable Elma T. Salinas-Ender, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 12, 2012

AFFIRMED

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s application for writ of habeas 

corpus. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

On October 5, 2011, appellant was arrested without a warrant and charged with 

aggravated sexual assault of an elderly or disabled person. On that same date, a complaint was 

filed. A few weeks later, another complaint was filed charging appellant with burglary of a 

habitation, a charge arising from the same incident as the aggravated assault. On January 18, 

2012, appellant was indicted on both offenses. The trial court set bail at $100,000.
04-11-00863-CR

- 2 -

On appeal, appellant contends he was arrested pursuant to the first complaint, which did 

not allege probable cause. Therefore, appellant asserts the trial court erred in denying his 

application for a writ of habeas corpus because he was entitled to bail set at an amount not to 

exceed $10,000 pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 17.033(b), which provides, 

in pertinent part, that

. . . a person who is arrested without a warrant and who is detained in jail must be 

released on bond, in an amount not to exceed $10,000, not later than the 48th hour 

after the person’s arrest if the person was arrested for a felony and a magistrate 

has not determined whether probable cause exists to believe that the person 

committed the offense. . . . .

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 17.033(b) (West 2005).

Habeas corpus is by definition an extraordinary writ in which the restraint of one’s liberty 

is challenged as illegal. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 11.01 and 11.23 (West 2005); 

Saucedo v. State, 795 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no pet.). However, 

where the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent developments, the 

legal issues raised are rendered moot. See Ex parte Branch, 553 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1977); Saucedo, 795 S.W.2d at 9. Even if appellant was arrested pursuant to a complaint 

that did not allege probable cause, he has since been indicted; therefore, his argument under 

article 17.033(b) is moot. Except for his argument under article 17.033(b), appellant does not 

otherwise challenge the amount of his bail. Therefore, we do not consider whether the bail 

amount of $100,000 was excessive. For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Do not publish
Exhibit 21.1
                            Greenbriar Corporation
                                 Subsidiaries

American Care Properties I, Inc.
American Care Communities of Sanford, Inc.
American Care Communities of Florida, Inc.
American Country Time, Inc.
American Care Communities, Inc.
Assisted Lending, Inc.
Berne Village, Inc.
CareAmerica, Inc.
Carolina Care Communities, Inc.
Complete Corporation
Crown Pointe, Inc.
Crown Pointe Development - Corona (LP)
Equivest Roswell Square, Inc.
Equivest, Inc.
Equivest West, Inc.
Equivest Fairington, Ltd.
Equivest Oak Tree, Ltd.
Equivest Properties, Inc.
Graybrier, Inc.
Greenbriar Payroll Company
Greenbriar Leasing Corporation
Greenbriar Financial Corporation
Harlingen Retirement LC
Hermiston Assisted Living, Inc.
Kellway Corporation
King City Retirement Corporation
Lake James, Inc.
Lewiston Group LLC
Liberty Acquired Brain Injury Habilitation Services, Inc.
Lincolnshire Partners
Maranatha Manor of Spartanburg, Inc.
Medical Concepts, Inc.
MRC Assisted Living, Inc.
Neawanna By The Sea Limited Partnership
Oak Harbor Retirement Center, Inc.
Oak Harbor Retirement Center LP
Paradise-Greenbriar, Inc.
Remuda Acquisition Corp.
Residential Healthcare Properties, Inc.
Residential Healthcare Properties of Texas, Inc.
Retirement Housing Associates (LP)
Rose Arbor of Ocala, Inc.
Rose Garden Estates LLC
Rose Manor of Cary, Inc.
Rose Tara Plantation, Inc.
Rose Terrace of Wendell, Inc.
Roswell Retirement Ltd. Co.
Roswell Senior Apartments Ltd. Co.
RRSP, Inc.
Sweetwater Springs Group, LLC
Tara Management, Inc.
The Greenbriar at Sherman, Inc.
The Terrace Retirement, Inc.
The Greenbriar at Muskogee, Inc.
The Denison-Greenbriar Inc.
The Briarcliff at Texarkana, Inc.
Transferco, Inc.
Villa Residential Care Homes - Corpus Christi South LP
Villa Residential Care Homes -Arlington L. L.P. (49%)
Villa Residential Care Homes - Granbury LP
Villa Residential Care Homes, Inc.
Villa Del Rey-Roswell Limited Partnership
Villa Residential Care Homes - Oak Park, L.P.
Villa Residential Care Homes - Forth Worth, L.P.
Villa Del Rey-Seaside, Inc.
VLS & Associates, Inc.
Wedgwood Corporation
Wedgwood Retirement Inns, Inc.
Windsor House Florence, Inc.
Windsor House West, Inc.
Windsor House Greenville, LLC