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

<ARTICLE>     UT
<LEGEND>
  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
  THE STATEMENT OF INCOME, STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS, BALANCE SHEET, AND
  STATEMENT OF COMMON STOCKHOLDER'S EQUITY, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>         0000201533
<NAME>        CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       4,377    
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                       697    
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                            686 
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        1,194    
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                      0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  6,954 
<COMMON>                                          841    
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                         491    
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                               237    
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  1,598    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                       356 
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            1,519    
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                341 
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                         403    
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                      0 
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      45    
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                           0 
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                       104    
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   45    
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  2,572     
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   6,954 
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       3,511
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                              133    
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      2,962    
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      3,107     
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                           404    
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  2    
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                    418    
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          163 
<NET-INCOME>                                      255 
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        28 
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                     227 
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           70    
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                         135    
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                            642    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0 


</TABLE>
Order entered June 19, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00463
- CV MICHAEL KRASNICKI, Appellant

V. TACTICAL ENTERTAINME NT, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401
- 03246
- 2017



### O RDER
B e fore the Court is appellee’s June 18, 2018 unopposed motion to extend time to file response brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than July 10, 2018.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
March 27, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MAYOR ANNISE PARKER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AS MAYOR OF THE 

CITY OF HOUSTON, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00353-CV V.

AFEWORK HUNEGNAW, Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the order denying appellant Mayor Annise Parker, in 

her Official Capacity, As Mayor of the City of Houston’s plea to the jurisdiction, signed 

April 5, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record

and find no error in the order. We order the order of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant Mayor Annise Parker, in her Official Capacity, As Mayor of 

the City of Houston to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this 

decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 23.2

                NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

In May 2002, The Ziegler Companies, Inc. announced that the Board of Directors
ended the engagement of Arthur Andersen LLP as the Company's independent public
accountants.  The Company subsequently engaged KPMG LLP to serve as the
Company's independent public accountants for the fiscal year ending December 31,
2002. For more information, see the Company's current reports on Form 8-K, dated
May 31, 2002 and July 24, 2002, respectively.

After reasonable efforts, the Company has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen
LLP's written consent to the incorporation by reference of Arthur Andersen LLP's
reports on the Company's consolidated financial statements and related financial
statement schedules for each of the two years ended December 31, 2001, which are
included or incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K, into the following
Registration Statements:

1. Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-39543) -- 1989
   Employees' Stock Purchase Plan

2. Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 33-74636) -- 1993
   Employees' Stock Incentive Plan

3. Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-33476)--Certain
   plans of The Ziegler Companies, Inc.

Accordingly, the Company has omitted Arthur Andersen LLP's consent in reliance
upon Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933, which permits the Company to
dispense with the requirement to file the written consent of Arthur Andersen LLP
under the circumstances.

Arthur Andersen LLP has not consented to the incorporation of their reports
included in this Form 10-K into the Registration Statements listed above.
Therefore, with respect to transactions in the Company's securities pursuant to
the Registration Statements that are made on or after the date this annual
report on Form 10-K is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur
Andersen LLP will not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933 for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the
Company's consolidated financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen LLP or
for any omission to state a material fact required to be stated in those
consolidated financial statements and thus no claim could be asserted against
Arthur Andersen LLP under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act. To the extent
provided in Section 11(b)(3)(C) of the Securities Act, however, other persons
who are liable under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act, including the
Company's officers and directors, may still rely on Arthur Andersen's original
audit report as being made by an expert for purposes of establishing a due
diligence defense under Section 11(b) of the Securities Act.
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2009-CR-7143, styled The State of Texas v. Deaon Hargrove,

pending in the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-10-00054-CR

IN RE DEAON HARGROVE

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 3, 2010 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 20, 2010, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that his right

to a speedy trial has been violated and asking this court to order the trial court to commence his trial

in the underlying criminal proceeding. Counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the trial

court. We conclude that appointed counsel for relator is also his counsel for an original proceeding

on the issues presented. 

Relator is not entitled to hybrid representation. See Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 498

(Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro se

petition for writ of mandamus will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s consideration.
04-10-00054-CR

-2-

See id.; see also Gray v. Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig.

proceeding). Consequently, this court has determined that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Therefore, the petition is DENIED. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

Relator is encouraged to refrain from filing further pro se petitions regarding his pending

criminal proceeding.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
#### In the Matter of John M.S., Respondent, v Bonni L.R., Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 259]

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order denying her objections to an order enforcing that part of a prior support order allocating the income tax dependency exemption for the parties’ child to petitioner father pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. We agree with the mother that Family Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enforce that part of the support order. “Family Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, [and] it cannot exercise powers beyond those granted to it by statute” *(Matter of Howard v Janowski,*226 AD2d 1087,1087 [1996]; *see also Kleila v Kleila,*50 NY2d 277, 282 [1980]). With respect to the enforcement of support orders, “[t]he summary enforcement procedures of Family Court Act article 4 apply only to payments that in. fact constitute ‘support’ or ‘maintenance’ ” *(Howard,*226 AD2d at 1087). Here, the father’s entitlement to claim the child as a dependent for income tax purposes is not an element of support set forth in Family Court Act article 4, and thus the court lacks jurisdiction to enforce that part of the support order *(see*Family Ct Act § 413 [1]; §§ 416, 454; *see also Iseman v Iseman,*48 AD2d 809, 810 [1975], *appeal dismissed*37 NY2d 918 [1975]). The father must seek enforcement of the parties’ stipulation to allow the father to claim the child as his dependent for income tax purposes by way of a plenary action in Supreme Court *(see Howard,*226 AD2d at 1088). We therefore reverse the order, grant the objections and dismiss the petition.

*1236In light of our determination, we need not reach the mother’s remaining contentions. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Fine and Gorski, JJ.
Bus drivers, school

Drive a school bus to transport students. Ensure adherence to safety rules. May 

assist students in boarding or exiting.

Cognitive and mental requirements

The qualifications that workers need to use judgment, make decisions, interact 

with others, and adapt to changes in jobs.

In 2023, more than basic people skills were required for 19.1 percent of bus 

drivers, school, and basic people skills were required for 80.9 percent.

Table 1. Percentage of bus drivers, school with cognitive and mental requirements, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Pace: Pause control <0.5 >99.5

Interaction with general public 96.6 3.4

Working around crowds 2.8 97.2

Telework <0.5 >99.5

Work review: Supervising others <0.5 >99.5

Work review: Presence of supervisor <0.5 >99.5

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey

Education, training, 

and experience 

requirements

The minimum level of 

formal education 

required, credentials 

necessary, on-the-job 

training, and prior work 

experience necessary for 

average performance in 

jobs.

In 2023, credentials were 

required for greater than 

99.5 percent of bus 

drivers, school. Prior 

work experience was 

required for 6.2 percent 

and on-the-job training 

was required for 90.7 

percent.

No minimum education was required for 37.7 percent of bus drivers, school and a high school diploma was required for 

62.3 percent.
Occupational Requirements Survey ●www.bls.gov/ors ●orsinfo@bls.gov ●202.691.6199

Environmental conditions

The various tangible or concrete 

hazards or difficulties that are in the 

vicinity of where jobs’ critical tasks are 

performed.

In 2023, greater than 99.5 percent of 

bus drivers, school were not exposed to 

extreme cold, and greater than 99.5 

percent were not exposed to extreme 

heat. Wetness was not present for 82.8 

percent, greater than 99.5 percent 

were not exposed to heavy vibrations, 

and 15.9 percent were not exposed to 

the outdoors.

Physical demands

Refer to the physical activities 

required to perform tasks in jobs. 

The presence and, in some cases, 

duration of these activities are 

published.

In 2023, reaching at or below the 

shoulder was required for 92.1 

percent of bus drivers, school 

and was not required for 7.9 

percent.

Performing work in low postures 

was required for 75.8 percent of 

bus drivers, school and was not 

required for 24.2 percent.

On average, bus drivers, school 

spent 88.2 percent of the 

workday sitting and 11.8 percent of the workday standing.

Table 2. Percentage of bus drivers, school with physical demands, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Choice of sitting or standing <0.5 >99.5

Driving >99.5 <0.5

Climbing structure-related ramps or stairs 16.9 83.1

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-21103 

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEMETRIO HERNANDEZ-FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-470-1

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

June 18, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender for Demetrio Hernandez-Flores

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief pursuant 

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hernandez has

received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but he has not

filed a response. Our review of the brief filed by counsel and

the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel

is excused from further responsibilities, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09
- 14
- 00 309
- CV



### _________________
IN RE MUJTABA ALI KHAN

________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 21, 2014, Mujtaba Ali Khan petitioned for mandamus to compel the Judge of the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, to vacate its November 25, 2013 protective order and compel discovery concerning the issuance of a Texas medical license to the real party in interest, Haroon Chaudhry

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3. Relator filed a motion for temporary relief from a July 28, 2014
trial sett ing. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 2.10(a). We have carefully reviewed Relator’s petition and the accompanying mandamus record, and we conclude that Relator has not established an abuse of discretion for which an appeal will not be an adequate remedy. See In re Pru dential Ins. C o. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

- 362 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). We overrule Relator’s issue and deny mandamus and temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a)

. PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 23, 2014 Opinion Delivered July 24, 2014 Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson , JJ.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #15259 and #15260; Oklahoma Disaster Number OK-00117]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Oklahoma dated August 22, 2017.
 DATES: Issued on 08/22/2017. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         10/23/2017. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/22/2018.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. *Incident:*
                     Tornadoes, Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                     08/05/2017 through 08/14/2017. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Tulsa *Contiguous Counties:* Oklahoma: Creek, Okmulgee, Osage, Pawnee, Rogers, Wagoner, Washington. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere
3.500Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.750Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere
6.610Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.305Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.305Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.500
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 15259 C and for economic injury is 15260 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Oklahoma. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Dated: August 22, 2017. Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2017-18373 Filed 8-29-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### ESQUIRE, Inc., Plaintiff, v. David LEWIS, Mac Lewis and Arthur Lindsay, doing business under the name Esquire Sportswear Co., Defendants.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

July 27, 1954.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for plaintiff.

Henry L. Burkitt, New York City, for defendants.

DAWSON, District Judge.

This is a motion for an order requiring plaintiff (1) to serve an amended complaint which will separately state and number each claim for relief; and (2) requiring plaintiff to make its complaint more definite and certain.

The amended complaint alleges that it. is “a suit for unfair trading and for infringement of a trade-mark registered in the United States Patent Office”. It is not clear from the amended complaint, which of the allegations relate to the charge of trade-mark infringement and which relate to the charge of unfair competition. The trade-mark is not described, nor is its registration number given.

The issues with reference to infringement of a registered trade-mark may well be quite different from those relating to charges of unfair competition or the unfair use of • an unregistered trade-name. A clear presentation of the issues would seem to indicate that the claims for infringement of the registered trade-mark and the claims for unfair competition should be separately stated. Rule 10(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. See Italian Swiss Colony v. Ambrose & Co., Limited, D.C.Colo.1951, 94 F.Supp. 896; Brooks Bros. v. Brooks Clothing of California, D.C.Calif.1954, 60 F.Supp. 442, affirmed 9 Cir., 158 F.2d 798, certiorari denied 331 U.S. 824, 67 S.Ct. 1315, 91 L.Ed. 1840.

It is, therefore, ordered that the-plaintiff amend its complaint separately to state the causes of action for infringement of a registered trade-mark and for unfair competition. The cause of action for infringement of a registered trademark shall identify the trade-mark and its registration.

The balance of the motion which seeks to make the complaint more definite and certain is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 719 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 719

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To rename the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Great Falls, Montana, the 
   Captain John E. Moran and Captain William Wylie Galt Armed Forces 
                            Reserve Center.

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

SECTION 1. RENAMING OF THE ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER IN GREAT FALLS, 
              MONTANA, AS THE CAPTAIN JOHN E. MORAN AND CAPTAIN WILLIAM 
              WYLIE GALT ARMED FORCES RESERVE CENTER.

    (a) Renaming.--The Armed Forces Reserve Center in Great Falls, 
Montana, shall hereafter be known and designated as the ``Captain John 
E. Moran and Captain William Wylie Galt Armed Forces Reserve Center''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, map, regulation, map, 
document, paper, other record of the United States to the facility 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference to 
the Captain John E. Moran and Captain William Wylie Galt Armed Forces 
Reserve Center.

            Passed the Senate March 16, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 719

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To rename the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Great Falls, Montana, the 
   Captain John E. Moran and Captain William Wylie Galt Armed Forces 
                            Reserve Center.
```