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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,558,813
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,575,296
<PP&E>                                         213,653
<DEPRECIATION>                               (130,785)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,865,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           96,942
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,263
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,764,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,865,731
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               257,122
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (192,857)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (192,857)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (192,857)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        





</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Billy J. FORD, Appellant.

No. 07-1637.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 21, 2008.

Filed: Feb. 4, 2008.

Allison Behrens, Raymond Martin Meyer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellee.

Billy J. Ford, Clayton, MO, pro se.

Carter Collins Law, Schriener Law, Clayton, MO, for Appellant.

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Billy J. Ford appeals the 96-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Ford argues on appeal that his sentence, at the top of his undisputed advisory Guidelines range, is unreasonable because the district court did not expressly address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, because the court overemphasized his criminal history, and because the court’s comments at sentencing were not specific to him or his crime.

In determining Ford’s sentence, the district court was not required expressly to address the section 3553(a) factors. *See United States v. Gillispie,*487 F.3d 1158, 1162-63 (8th Cir.2007) (mechanical recitation of factors is not required). The record demonstrates that the court had before it ample information relevant to the section 3553(a) factors, including Ford’s extensive criminal history and record of misconduct in prison. *See Rita v. United States,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (inferring district court’s reasoning from context and *920examination of whole record). Nothing in the record suggests that the district court overemphasized Ford’s criminal history or otherwise misapplied the section 3553(a) factors, and the court’s comments at sentencing were in direct response to Ford’s statements in allocution and were not improper. We therefore conclude that Ford’s within-Guidelines-range sentence is not unreasonable. *See United States v. Denton,*434 F.3d 1104, 1113 (8th Cir.2006) (sentence within Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable); *see also Rita,*127 S.Ct. at 2462 (approving appellate presumption of reasonableness).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### Sandi D. JACKSON, as next friend and parent of, Keely A. Jackson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Frank MIX, Susie Yonkers, Jeannie Cole, Amy Burke, Shannon Atkinson, Kim Wilson, Amy Nix, Keri Cress, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-6010.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 9, 2008.

*362Before: KENNEDY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and HOOD, District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Sandi Jackson alleges that defendants, individually and in concert with each other, violated her daughter Keely’s constitutional rights. None of the factual allegations contained in her complaint, however, are linked with any specific defendant, and the complaint fails to address how defendants’ actions were objectively unreasonable. Citing these failures, the district court gave Jackson twenty-one days to amend her complaint under *Achterhof v. Selvaggio,*886 F.2d 826, 881 (6th Cir.1989) (if a plaintiff fails to allege sufficient factual allegations necessary to sustain his § 1983 action, a court must accord the plaintiff an additional opportunity to come forward with such allegations). Instead of curing the problem, Jackson’s second complaint simply re-alleges that *“all*of the defendants participated in violating her substantive due process rights by committing several unconstitutional acts.” This is not specific enough to sustain her claim, and the defendants are thus entitled to a dismissal of the complaint under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted). We thus AFFIRM the holding of the district court.
* 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 September 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-41707 Summary Calendar

PAUL D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus J.B. SMITH, Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:03-CV-88

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Paul D. Williams, Texas prisoner # 1149568, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Williams contends that the defendant denied him access to the courts while he was a pretrial detainee at the Smith County Jail. The record reflects that counsel was initially appointed to represent Williams in his criminal proceeding. Williams relievedNo. 03-41707 -2- appointed counsel and he retained counsel. Insofar as Williams may seek to challenge the guilty-plea process, he has no claim.
See Degrate v. Godwin , 84 F.3d 768, 769 (5th Cir. 1996). Insofar as Williams asserts that he sought access to the jail’s law library to pursue habeas relief relating to the denial of his bond-reduction motion, we uphold the magistrate judge’s dismissal of that claim on the alternative ground that the record reflects that Williams suffered no prejudice from any such denial. See Sojourner T. v. Edwards , 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992). In light of the extensive criminal history listed in Williams’ inmate classification record and his status as a registered sex offender, any further attempts to have his bond lowered would have been futile. Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal of Williams’ complaint counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Williams is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2460 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2460

 To amend title 46, United States Code, to allow operation of foreign-
     flag cruise ships in the coastwise trade of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2011

  Mr. Farenthold (for himself and Mr. Paul) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 46, United States Code, to allow operation of foreign-
     flag cruise ships in the coastwise trade of the United States.

    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 ``Creating and Restoring U.S. 
Investment and Stimulating Employment Act''.

SEC. 2. OPERATION OF FOREIGN-FLAG CRUISE SHIPS IN THE COASTWISE TRADE 
              OF THE UNITED STATES.

    Section 55103 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Limitation on Application.--
            ``(1) In general.--This section shall not apply to the 
        transportation of passengers by a passenger vessel on a 
        voyage--
                    ``(A) that is more than 24 hours in duration;
                    ``(B) any part of which is on the high seas; and
                    ``(C) in which passengers embark or disembark in 
                the United States (including any commonwealth or 
                territory of the United States).
            ``(2) Passenger vessel defined.--For purposes of this 
        subsection `passenger vessel' (as defined in section 2101) does 
        not include--
                    ``(A) a public vessel;
                    ``(B) a vessel owned or operated by a State or 
                local government; or
                    ``(C) a vessel that is used on a regular schedule--
                            ``(i) to provide transportation only 
                        between particular places; and
                            ``(ii) to transport only--
                                    ``(I) passengers; or
                                    ``(II) vehicles, or railroad cars, 
                                that are being used, or have been used, 
                                in transporting passengers or goods.''.
                                 <all>
```
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2480 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize appropriations for the Administrative Conference of the United 

States for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2480 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Administrative Con3 ference of the United States Reauthorization Act of 

4 2011’’. 

5 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

6 Section 596 of title 5, United States Code, is amend7 ed to read as follows: 

8 ‘‘§ 596. Authorization of appropriations 

9 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 

10 this subchapter not more than $2,900,000 for fiscal year 

11 2012, $2,900,000 for fiscal year 2013, and $2,900,000 

12 for fiscal year 2014. Of any amounts appropriated under 

13 this section, not more than $2,500 may be made available 

14 in each fiscal year for official representation and enter15 tainment expenses for foreign dignitaries.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives August 1, 

2011. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2480 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to authorize 

and 2014, and for other purposes. of the United States for fiscal years 2012, 2013, appropriations for the Administrative Conference
Motion Granted in Part and Denied in Part and Order filed April 2 6 , 2021

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00197

- CV

____________ TEXAS FUNDING CORPORATION , Appellant

V. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS AND LINA HIDALGO IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COUNTY JUDGE OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 165th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021

- 11494



### ORDER
This is an appeal from an order signed on April 9, 2021 (“the Order”) . The
O rder grants the plea to the jurisdiction of defendants/appellees Harris County and Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo and dismisses plaintiff/appellant Texas Funding Corp.’s complaint with prejudice.2

On Friday, April 23, 2021, a ppellan t filed an emergency motion for temporary relief under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.3
, seeking to “protect[] the status

quo

. ” The motion also asks that we expedite our consideration of the appeal . Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(d) (permitting court of appeal s to shorten time for filing briefs and for submission of case in the interest of justice).
Appellant stated in its notice of appeal that it is entitled to an interlocutory appeal of the Order under section 54.014(a) (8) of the Civil Practice and Remedies
Code
, 1 and that subsection 8 permits an appeal of an interlocutory order that grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4), (8).

The Order is not an interlocutory order. It disposes of all claims and parties, which makes it a final judgment. “ A judgment that finally disposes of all remaining parties and claims, based on the record in the case, is final, regardless of its language. ” Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001 ). Therefore, this appeal is not an interlocutory appeal; it is an appeal from a final judgment.
In an appeal from an interlocutory order, the court of appeals may make any temporary order necessary to preserve the parties’ rights until disposition of the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 29.3. As explained, this is not an appeal from an interlocutory order. Rule 29.3 does not apply.
We deny the request for emergency relief. We grant the request for expedited briefing. Subject to motions to extend time, appellant’s brief is due on or before May

1 The notice of appeal also cites section 51.014(a)(4), which permits an appeal of an interlocutory order that grants or refuses to grant a temporary injunction, Tex. Civ. Prac . & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4). Neither the Order nor any order in the appellate record grant s or refuse s to grant a temporary injunction. Instead, the record contains orders denying requests for temporary restraining orders . Orders granting or denying reque sts for temporary restraining orders are not appealable

. See In re Abbott , 601 S.W.3d 802, 813 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).3

13, 2021 , and appellees’ brief is due within 20 days of the day appellant’s brief is
filed.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             1,451
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      7,033
<ALLOWANCES>                                       4,102
<INVENTORY>                                        9,004
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  14,048
<PP&E>                                            10,150
<DEPRECIATION>                                     3,399
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    23,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             14,440
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             101
<OTHER-SE>                                         8,459
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      23,020
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   7,238
<CGS>                                              5,762
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      1,476
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    94
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (3,977)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (3,977)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (3,977)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.40)



</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19201]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Improvements Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance Center 
Improvements Project Committee will conduct an open meeting and will 
solicit public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer 
service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(214) 413-6523.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Taxpayer Assistance 
Center Improvements Project Committee will be held Tuesday, October 17, 
2017, at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral 
comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited 
conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made 
with Lisa Billups. For more information please contact Lisa Billups at 
1-888-912-1227 or 214-413-6523, or write TAP Office 1114 Commerce 
Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The committee will be discussing various issues related to the 
Taxpayer Assistance Centers and public input is welcomed.

    Dated: September 1, 2017.
Antoinette Ross,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2017-19201 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```
Exhibit 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

Shareholders and Board of Directors
Berlitz International, Inc.
400 Alexander Park
Princeton, NJ  08540

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-69199 of Berlitz International, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated
February 26, 1999 (March 12, 1999 as to Note 15), appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-KA of Berlitz International, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 1998.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche, LLP
--------------------------
New York, New York
March 31, 1999
NUMBER 13-24-00283-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE KAITLAN ROSS

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

On May 24, 2024, relator Kaitlan Ross filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

asserting that the trial court erred by finding her in contempt because the motion for 

enforcement filed by the real party in interest Aaron Mach failed to meet the requirements 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 

47.1 (requiring the appellate courts to “hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that 

addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and 

memorandum opinions).
2

of the Texas Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 157.002. Relator also filed a 

motion for release from incarceration pending the resolution of this original proceeding.

An order of contempt may be reviewed through a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

In re Luther, 620 S.W.3d 715, 721 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). A court 

will issue a writ of habeas corpus if the order underlying the contempt is void or if the 

contempt order itself is void. See id. at 722. The relator bears the burden of showing that 

the contempt order is void and not merely voidable. In re B.G.B., 580 S.W.3d 310, 315–

16 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2019, orig. proceeding); In re Munks, 263 S.W.3d 270, 272–73 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, orig. proceeding). A contempt order is void if it deprives 

the relator of liberty without due process of law or if it exceeded the power of the court to 

issue. In re Office of Atty. Gen., 422 S.W.3d 623, 628 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding); In 

re Mayorga, 538 S.W.3d 174, 176 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, orig. proceeding). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, the response filed by Mach, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator 

has not met her burden to obtain relief. We deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus

and the amended emergency motion for release.

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice 

Delivered and filed on the

30th day of May, 2024.