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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,662
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,189
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        292
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,278
<PP&E>                                          46,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,022
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,644
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,539
<BONDS>                                         21,460
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,643
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,764
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,644
<SALES>                                         16,842
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,208
<CGS>                                           11,414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,907
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    38
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 324
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,385
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,159
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,159
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .75
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2480 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2480

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 2, 2011

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 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.

    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 ``Administrative Conference of the 
United States Reauthorization Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 596 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:
``Sec. 596. Authorization of appropriations
    ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
subchapter not more than $2,900,000 for fiscal year 2012, $2,900,000 
for fiscal year 2013, and $2,900,000 for fiscal year 2014. Of any 
amounts appropriated under this section, not more than $2,500 may be 
made available in each fiscal year for official representation and 
entertainment expenses for foreign dignitaries.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives August 1, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Order filed December 5, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00901

- CV

____________ MELISA SYLVESTER , Appellant

V. BJORN M. NILSSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 280th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. 2019

- 34043



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed November 8, 2019. To date, the filing fee of $20 5.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs h as been filed.
See Tex. R. App. P

. 5

. Therefore, the court issues the following order.
Appellant is ordered to pay th e filing fee in the amount of $20 5.00 to the

c lerk of this court on or before December 20, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. Ifappellant fail s to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal

will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the accompanying  Quarterly Report of Consortium Service
Management  Group,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended
September 30, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Donald S. Robbins, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  November 22, 2005

                                                          /s/ Donald S. Robbins
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Donald S. Robbins
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of Western Gas Resources, Inc.


Name of Subsidiary                               Relationship
------------------                               ------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


<S>              <C>                                     <C>
1)   MIGC, Inc.                                  Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

2)   MGTC, Inc.                                  Wholly-owned subsidiary of MIGC, Inc.

3)   Western Gas Resources - Texas, Inc.         Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

4)   Western Gas Resources - Oklahoma, Inc.      Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

5)   Mountain Gas Resources, Inc.                Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

6)   Western Power Services, Inc.                Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

7)   Pinnacle Gas Treating, Inc.                 Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

8)   WGR Canada, Inc.                            Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

9)   Lance Oil & Gas Company, Inc.               Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

10)  Mountain Gas Transportation, Inc.           Wholly-owned subsidiary of Mountain Gas Resources, Inc.

11)  Western Gas Wyoming, L.L.C.                 Wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Gas Resources, Inc.

12)  Green River Gathering Company               A joint venture between Western Gas Resources, Inc.
                                                 and Mountain Gas Resources, Inc.

13)  Westana Gathering Company                   A general partnership with Western Gas Resources, Inc.,
                                                 as general partner

</TABLE>
#### Jose Juan Gutierrez LUNA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74391.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Nathan M. Zaslow, Esq., San Jose, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of *52Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Manuel A. Palau, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Juan Gutierrez Luna, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen, where the BIA considered the psychological report indicating Gutierrez Luna’s U.S. citizen daughter had delayed cognitive development and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. *See Singh v. INS,*295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 32.1****Certification Pursuant to****18 U.S.C. Section 1350,****As Adopted Pursuant to****Section 906 of the Sarbanes—Oxley Act of 2002**In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Houston Exploration Company (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, William G. Hargett, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.     /s/ William G. Hargett     Name: William G. HargettTitle: Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer  The Houston Exploration CompanyMay 8, 2007
[952 NYS2d 699]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Guinn, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

August 30, 2012

*29APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Gail Gray,*New York City, for appellant. *Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City *(Sheila L. Bautista*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction, rendered February 11, 2009, affirmed.

Following an initial trial which resulted in defendant’s acquittal of third-degree sexual abuse (Penal Law § 130.55) and a deadlocked jury and mistrial on a separate count of forcible touching (Penal Law § 130.52), a retrial was ordered on the forcible touching charge. So as to protect defendant’s double jeopardy rights, proof and jury consideration of the intent element of the remaining forcible touching charge upon the retrial was limited to whether defendant’s intention in touching the victim was for the purpose of “degrading or abusing” her (Penal Law § 130.52), with the court’s order precluding consideration of the sexual gratification prong of the statute.

Defendant’s conviction of forcible touching upon the retrial was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We find no basis to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. The intent element of forcible touching, as limited by the prior court order and as (properly) charged to the jury, was firmly established by the credited testimony of the victim and the arresting police officer (who witnessed the entire sordid incident) as to the nature and circumstances of the unwanted grinding and “pok[ing]” endured by the victim on the crowded subway train. The jury could justifiably infer from defendant’s actions and the surrounding circumstances that his conduct was actuated by an intent to degrade or humiliate the victim *(see People v Wagner,*72 AD3d 1196, 1197 [2010], *lv denied.*15 NY3d 779 [2010]; *People*
      *30
      *v Fuller,*50 AD3d 1171, 1175 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 788 [2008]; *see generally People v Bracey,*41 NY2d 296, 301 [1977]).

We find unavailing defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s summation since the challenged remarks, viewed in context with the statements made by defense counsel during summation, were fair comment on the evidence and did not misstate the applicable law *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]). Moreover, the prosecutor told the jury to listen to the court’s instructions on the law and the court properly instructed the jury on the elements of forcible touching *(see People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396 [1981]; *People v Stanley,*254 AD2d 507 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 1039 [1998]).

Finally, the victim’s status as an assistant district attorney in the office that prosecuted the case did not, standing alone and in the absence of any “particularized showing of prejudice” *(People v Seymour, 225*AD2d 487, 488 [1996]; *see Matter of Schumer v Holtzman,*60 NY2d 46, 54-55 [1983]), warrant the grant of defendant’s motion to disqualify the District Attorney’s office.

Lowe, III, EJ., Schoenfeld and Hunter, Jr., JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-1582

GEROD STUKES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CLAUDE STAFFORD, individually, Defendant - Appellee, and JOHN NEWHART, individually, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CA-99-1105-2) Submitted: February 28, 2001 Decided: April 24, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Beverly D. Crawford, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Jeff W. Rosen, Lisa Ehrich, PENDER & COWARD, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: At the close of Gerod Stukes’ presentation of evidence in his trial alleging employment discrimination, the district court granted Claude Stafford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). Stukes appeals from that final order and also alleges that the district court erred by refusing to admit certain exhibits into evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we do notfind that the district court abused its discretion in its challenged evidentiary ruling. United States v. Fernandez , 913 F.2d 148, 152-53 (4th Cir. 1990). Regarding the district court’s order granting Stafford’s Rule 50(a) motion, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Stukes v. Stafford , No. CA-99-1105-2 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 5, 2000; entered Apr. 6, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that,
to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-QSB of South Street Financial Corp. (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                      |  |                              |  |                                      
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                      |  | SOUTH STREET FINANCIAL CORP.
|                      |  |                             
|Date: August 11, 2006 |  | By:                          |  | /s/ R. Ronald Swanner                
|                      |  |                              |  | R. Ronald Swanner                    
|                      |  |                              |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  |                             
|Date: August 11, 2006 |  | By:                          |  | /s/ Christopher F. Cranford          
|                      |  |                              |  | Christopher F. Cranford              
|                      |  |                              |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
Amendment to Hyatt Hotels Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreements



 Exhibit 10.17 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION 

2008 and 2009 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENTS 

WHEREAS, Hyatt Hotels Corporation (the “Company”) has entered into certain Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreements and
Special Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreements in 2008 and 2009 pursuant to which the Company awarded certain employees the right to receive shares of common stock of the Company on the dates specified in such agreements (“2008 and 2009 RSU
Agreements”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the 2008 and 2009 RSU Agreements to add a six month delay in the
settlement of Common Stock upon Termination of Service in compliance with the terms of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; and 
 WHEREAS, to the extent not defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the 2008 and 2009 RSU Agreements. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the 2008 and 2009 RSU Agreements are hereby amended effective as of January 1, 2009 by adding the following to the
Section entitled “Settlement and Payment of RSUs”: 
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, if you are a
“specified employee” within the meaning of Section 409A of the Code, and the RSUs are to be settled and shares of Common Stock delivered as a result of your Termination of Service, then the Delivery Date for such shares of Common
Stock shall be delayed until the day next following the six month anniversary of your Termination of Service.” 
 In all
other regards the 2008 and 2009 RSU Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. 
  

			
	HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	/s/ Robert W. K. Webb
	Its:	 	Chief Human Resources Officer


 Dated:
December 17, 2010
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2761 

To amend section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949 to provide flexibility 

to the definition of rural areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mr. MANZULLO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949 to provide 

flexibility to the definition of rural areas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF RURAL AREA. 

4 Section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 

5 1490) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘As used’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) IN

7 GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection (b), as 

8 used’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub10 section: 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2761 IH

1 ‘‘(b) AUTHORITY FOR SECRETARY TO INCLUDE

2 OTHER AREAS.— 

3 ‘‘(1) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary may provide 

4 that a place, town, village, or city that does not meet 

5 the requirements under subsection (a) for consider6 ation as ‘rural’ or a ‘rural area’ shall be considered 

7 ‘rural’ or a ‘rural area’ for purposes of this title for 

8 the period provided in paragraph (3) if such place, 

9 town, village, or city— 

10 ‘‘(A) has a population not exceeding 

11 35,000; and— 

12 ‘‘(B) demonstrates to the satisfaction of 

13 the Secretary that— 

14 ‘‘(i) such place, town, village, or city 

15 is experiencing economic distress, which 

16 may be evidenced by any factors of eco17 nomic distress as the Secretary may pro18 vide, which may include factors such as— 

19 ‘‘(I) an unemployment rate that 

20 is higher than the national average; 

21 ‘‘(II) an average wage that is 

22 lower than the national wage; 

23 ‘‘(III) an average home sale price 

24 that is less than the national average; 

25 or 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2761 IH

1 ‘‘(IV) any other factor evidencing 

2 economic distress as the Secretary 

3 may provide; and 

4 ‘‘(ii) eligibility of such place, town, vil5 lage, or city for the programs under this 

6 title would be of significant value in help7 ing such place, town, village, or city re8 cover from such economic distress. 

9 ‘‘(2) REQUEST FOR TREATMENT AS RURAL; DE10 TERMINATION.—The Secretary shall provide for 

11 communities to submit requests for consideration of 

12 treatment as rural and a rural area pursuant to this 

13 subsection and the Secretary shall make a deter14 mination with respect to any such request not later 

15 that the expiration of the 90-day period beginning 

16 upon receipt of such request. 

17 ‘‘(3) APPLICABILITY.—A place, town, village, or 

18 city treated as rural and a rural areas pursuant to 

19 this subsection shall be so treated until the receipt 

20 of data from the first decennial census occurring 

21 after the determination pursuant to this sub22 section.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 97-31035

__________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN D. MADDEN, also known as J.D.,

Defendant-Appellant.

(consolidated with)

__________________________

97-31036

__________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MATTHEW MADDEN, also known as Buck,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(96-CR-10020-2)

July 14, 1998
*Pursuant to 5

TH 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.

2

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, WISDOM and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

These consolidated matters are before the court on appeal of the denial of

motions to dismiss based on misconduct of state officials, including a prosecutor

and a police officer who became the de facto federal case agent. Having considered

the briefs and very professional oral arguments of counsel, and pertinent parts of

the record, and without approving or condoning the challenged actions of the state

prosecutor and state police officer but, rather, deploring same, under the facts as

found and authorities cited by the magistrate judge as approved by the district

court, the judgments appealed are AFFIRMED.