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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-K
for the year ended September 28, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000858905
<NAME> UNIROYAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                          15,615
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  162,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,333
<INVENTORY>                                    180,414
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               404,957
<PP&E>                                         624,357
<DEPRECIATION>                                 252,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,132,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          250,691
<BONDS>                                        893,228
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (335,010)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,132,618
<SALES>                                      1,132,746
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,132,746
<CGS>                                          701,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,057,359
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (308)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,568
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             106,456
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (30,761)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       951
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (31,712)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    441
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,153)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3275 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow the refundable 

portion of the child credit to taxpayers using individual taxpayer identification numbers issued by the Internal Revenue Service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 27, 2011 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow 

the refundable portion of the child credit to taxpayers 

using individual taxpayer identification numbers issued 

by the Internal Revenue Service. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DISALLOWANCE OF REFUNDABLE PORTION OF 

4 CHILD CREDIT FOR TAXPAYERS USING ITINS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (e) of section 24 of the 

6 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as fol7 lows: 

8 ‘‘(e) IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3275 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No credit shall be allowed 

2 under this section to a taxpayer with respect to any 

3 qualifying child unless the taxpayer includes the 

4 name and taxpayer identification number of such 

5 qualifying child on the return of tax for the taxable 

6 year. 

7 ‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULE RELATING TO REFUND8 ABLE PORTION OF CREDIT.—No credit shall be al9 lowed under this section by reason of subsection (d) 

10 with respect to a taxpayer if the identifying number 

11 of such taxpayer, and, in the case of a joint return, 

12 of the taxpayer’s spouse, is an individual Taxpayer 

13 Identification Number (known as an ITIN) issued 

14 by the Secretary.’’. 

15 (b) MATHEMATICAL OR CLERICAL ERROR.— 

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 

17 6213(g) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ 

18 at the end of subparagraph (O), by striking the pe19 riod at the end of subparagraph (P) and inserting 

20 ‘‘, and’’, and by inserting before the last sentence 

21 the following: 

22 ‘‘(Q) an entry on a return claiming the 

23 credit under section 24 by reason of subsection 

24 (d) thereof if such credit is disallowed by sec25 tion 24(e)(2).’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3275 IH

1 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subparagraph 

2 (I) of section 6213(g)(1) of such Code is amended 

3 by striking ‘‘section 24(e)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 

4 24(e)(1)’’. 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

7 December 31, 2010. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 26, 2016 

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16I0207.LORRINETHOMAS v. TENET HEALTHSYSTEM GB,INC.D/B/A

ATLANTA MEDICAL CENTER et al.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered

that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10

days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a

copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2014CV246046

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta, May 26, 2016

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.
Exhibit 10.31
  Limited
    Waiver Agreement
  Borrower:        I-Flow
    Corporation
  Address:
    20202 Windrow Drive Lake Forest, California 92630
  Dated as of: March 13, 2009
  THIS LIMITED WAIVER AGREEMENT
    1. Limited
    Waiver.
      Fee.
  3. Limitation
    of Amendments.
      Representations and Warranties.
   1




---



##### 



Counterparts.
  Effectiveness.
  [Signature
    page follows.]
 2




---



##### 



Borrower:

Bank:I-Flow Corporation

Silicon Valley BankBy/s/  James
    R. TalevichPresident
    or Chief Financial Officer

By/s/  Robert AndersonTitle
    Senior Relationship Manager  3
Dismiss Writ and Opinion Filed June 12, 2013 

 In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00698-CV 

IN RE CHRISTOPHER ARIC RADKE, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 195th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F96-02380-UN 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Fillmore 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

Relator contends the trial court failed to rule on his motion for DNA testing. The facts 

and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. The relief 

requested by relator has been granted. Therefore, the issues presented in this petition are moot. 

See Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding). 

Accordingly, we DISMISS relator=s petition for a writ of mandamus. 

130698F.P05 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD OERTWICH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

TRADITIONAL VILLAGE OF

TOGIAK, AKA Community of

Togiak, AKA Native Village

of Togiak, AKA Traditional

Council of Togiak; JIMMY

COOPCHIAK; LEROY

NANALOOK; ANECIA KRITZ;

ESTHER THOMPSON; JOHN

NICK; WILLIE WASSILLIE;

HERBERT JR. LOCKUK;

WILLIE ECHUCK, JR.; CRAIG

LOGUSAK, in their individual

and official capacities; PAUL

MARKOFF; PETER LOCKUK,

SR.; BOBBY COOPCHIAK,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-36029

D.C.

No. 3:19-cv-00082-JWS

ORDER

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding
2 OERTWICH V. TRADITIONAL VILLAGE OF TOGIAK

Argued and Submitted June 15, 2021

Anchorage, Alaska

Filed July 28, 2022

Before: Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Morgan Christen, and

Ryan D. Nelson, Circuit Judges.

Order

COUNSEL

David H. Tennant (argued), Law Office of David Tennant

PLLC, Rochester, New York; Andy L. Pevehouse, Kenai

Law Group LLC, Kenai, Alaska; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

WhitneyA. Leonard (argued), Rebecca A. Patterson, Richard

D. Monkman, and Nathaniel Amdur-Clark, Sonosky

Chambers Sachse Miller Monkman LLP, Anchorage, Alaska,

for Defendants-Appellees.

ORDER

Pursuant to the Notification of Death of Appellant

(Docket Entry No. 74), this court entered an order requiring

the filing of a motion to substitute a personal representative

for the decedent within thirty (30) days (Docket Entry

No. 75). At the request of Appellant’s counsel, we entered an

order granting an extension (Docket No. 78) to no later than

July 11, 2022. To date, no request to substitute a personal

representative has been filed. Accordingly, we

WITHDRAW the Opinion filed March 30, 2022, Oertwich
OERTWICH V. TRADITIONAL VILLAGE OF TOGIAK 3

v. Traditional Village of Togiak, 29 F.4th 1108 (9th Cir.

2022), and DISMISS this appeal. This Order shall constitute

the mandate in this case.

The Petition for Panel Rehearing (Docket No. 71) is

DENIED as moot.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1020

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTI ES LIMITED, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ARM, LTD. and ARM, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Roger L. Cook , Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, of San Francisco,

California, argued for all plaintiffs-appellant s. With him on the brief for Technology

Properties Limited, Inc., were Nancy L. Tompkins , Eric P. Jacobs , and Cathy E.

Cretsinger

.

Charles T. Hoge , Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge LLP, of San Diego, California, for

plaintiff-appellant, Patriot Scientific Corporation.

Kevin P. Anderson , Wiley Rein LLP, of Washingt on, DC, argued for defendantsappellees. With him on the brief were Gregory R. Lyons and James H. Wallace, Jr. Of

counsel was Brian H. Pandya

.

Appealed from: United States District C ourt for the Eastern District of Texas

Judge T. John WardNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1020

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTI ES LIMITED, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ARM, LTD. and ARM, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

in CASE NO(S). 2:05-CV-494

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (DYK and PROST, Circuit Judges , and HOCHBERG, District Judge ). ∗

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED May 9, 2008 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk

∗ Honorable Faith S. Hochberg, Distric t Judge, United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 Three Months EndedJune 30,2009
    
    
    2008Earnings per common share  basic(1)Net income
    
    $
    694
    
    
    $
    686Less: TARP CPP Preferred Dividends
    
    
    (237
    )
    
    
    Dividends paid and undistributed earnings
allocated to participating securities
    
    
    (3
    )
    
    
    Net Income Available to Common Shareholders
    
    $
    454
    
    
    $
    686Weighted average common shares
outstanding
    
    
    2,470,072
    
    
    
    2,479,328Earnings per common share
    
    $
    0.18
    
    
    $
    0.28Earnings per common share  dilutedNet income
    
    $
    694
    
    
    $
    686Less: TARP CPP Preferred Dividends
    
    
    (237
    )
    
    
    Dividends paid and undistributed earnings
allocated to participating securities
    
    
    (3
    )
    
    
    Net Income Available to Common Shareholders
    
    $
    454
    
    
    $
    686Weighted average common shares
outstanding  basic
    
    
    2,470,072
    
    
    
    2,517,058Effect of dilutive securities  stock options and
unvested restricted stock (2)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    37,730Weighted average shares
outstanding  diluted
    
    
    2,470,072
    
    
    
    2,554,788Earnings per common share
    
    $
    0.18
    
    
    $
    0.27
 (1)
    
    In June 2008, the FASB
issued FSP EITF 03-6-1,
Determining Whether Instruments
Granted In Share Based Payment
Transactions Are Participating
Securities, which clarifies
that unvested stock-based
compensation awards containing
non-forfeitable rights to
dividends are considered
participating securities and
therefore are included in the
two-class method for calculating
earnings per share. Under the
two-class method, all earnings
(distributed and undistributed)
are allocated to common shares
and participating securities
based on their resoective rights
to receive dividends. The
Company grants restricted stock
to certain employees under its
stock-based compensation plan.
Recepients receive cash
dividends during the vesting
periods of these awards )i.e.,
including on the unvested
portion of such awards). Since
these dividends are
non-forfeitable, the unvested
awards are considered
participating securities and
will have earnings allocated to
them.(2)
    
    As of June 30, 2009, there
were no potentially dilutive
shares except for 19,321
unvested restricted shares which
are participating securities
under FSP EITF 03-6-1.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3004 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3004

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 260 California Drive in Yountville, California, as the ``Private 
         First Class Alejandro R. Ruiz Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. PRIVATE FIRST CLASS ALEJANDRO R. RUIZ POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 260 California Drive in Yountville, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Private First Class Alejandro R. Ruiz 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Private 
First Class Alejandro R. Ruiz Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3004

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 260 California Drive in Yountville, California, as the ``Private 
         First Class Alejandro R. Ruiz Post Office Building''.
```
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20178 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ENRIQUE RUIZ-LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-689-ALL

-------------------- February 20, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Enrique Ruiz-Lopez (“Ruiz”) appeals his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and resulting 24-month sentence. He renews his argument that his prior felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance did not merit the eight-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C) for an aggravated felony and that he should have received only the four-level adjustment provided in § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D) for “any other felony.” Ruiz’s argumentsNo. 02-20178 -2- regarding the definitions of “drug trafficking offense” and “aggravated felony” were recently foreclosed by United States v. Caicedo-Cuero , 312 F.3d 697, 706-11 (5th Cir. 2002). The district court thus did not err in assessing an eight-level adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C). Id. Ruiz also argues, for the first time on appeal, that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional because it treats a prior conviction for an aggravated felony as a mere sentencing factor and not an element of the offense. He concedes that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.2**
**Certification Pursuant to**
**18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**
**As Adopted Pursuant to**
**Section 906 of the Sarbanes—Oxley Act of 2002**
     Inconnection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of The Houston Exploration Company(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,John H. Karnes, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:
 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations ofthe Company.   By: /s/ John H. Karnes Name: John H. KarnesTitle: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerThe Houston Exploration Company
November 24, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

September 13, 2024

SC-2024-0502

Ex parte Herbert Dewayne Hosea PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: 

Herbert Dewayne Hosea v. State of Alabama) (Mobile Circuit Court: CC19-4464; Criminal Appeals: CR-2022-1049).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on September 13, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Parker, C.J. -- Shaw, Bryan, 

Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of AVAX Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Richard P. Rainey, President (as such, the principal executiveofficer and principal financial officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/  Richard P. Rainey                                          |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Richard P.  Rainey                                                        |
| President  (Principal Executive Officer  and Principal Financial Officer) |
| May 14, 2003                                                              |

 

----
NUMBER 13-10-00027-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

______________________________________________________________

LUANA GRUETZMACHER AND 

CURTIS GRUETZMACHER, Appellants,

v.

DUKE ENERGY FIELD SERVICES, L.P., 

NOW KNOWN AS DCP MIDSTREAM, L.P., Appellee.

_____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 135th District Court 

of Goliad County, Texas.

______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants, Luana Gruetzmacher and Curtis Gruetzmacher, attempted to perfect an

appeal from a judgment entered by the 135th District Court of Goliad County, Texas, in

cause number 07-1-9145-CV. Judgment in this cause was signed on September 21, 2009.

A motion to reconsider was filed on October 19, 2009. Pursuant to Texas Rule of
Appellate Procedure 26.1, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on December 21, 2009,

but was not filed until January 18, 2010. 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in

good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the

fifteen-day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See

Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617-18, 619 (1997) (construing the predecessor to

Rule 26). However, appellant must provide a reasonable explanation for the late filing: it

is not enough to simply file a notice of appeal. Id.; Woodard v. Higgins, 140 S.W.3d 462,

462 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2004, no pet.); In re B.G., 104 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.–Waco

2002, no pet.). 

On February 1, 2010, the Clerk of this Court notified appellants of this defect so that

steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. Appellants were advised

that, if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of this Court’s

letter, the appeal would be dismissed. To date, no response has been received from

appellants providing a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. 

Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the documents on file, appellants’

failure to timely perfect the appeal, and appellants’ failure to respond to this Court’s notice,

is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly,

appellee’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED FOR

WANT OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a)(c).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

4th day of March, 2010. 

2