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

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0001088691
<NAME> TXU EUROPE LIMITED
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        2,678
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      1,003
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             917
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           168
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   3,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,429
<COMMON>                                         1,467
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                147
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,607
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             4,495
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 157
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      383
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   1,787
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    8,429
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        2,686
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                68
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       2,332
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       2,332
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            354
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   5
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     359
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           259
<NET-INCOME>                                        71
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       71
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                          259
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             447
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### In re: Ronald Oneal VALENTINE.

No. 08-1175.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 19, 2008.

Decided: May 5, 2008.

Ronald Oneal Valentine, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Oneal Valentine petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
Murphy Exploration & 

Production Co.-USA, A 

Delaware /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 27, 2015

No. 04-15-00118-CV

Shirley ADAMS, Charlene Burgess, Willie Mae Herbst Jasik, William Albert Herbst, Helen 

Herbst and R. May Oil & Gas Company, Ltd.,

Appellants

v.

MURPHY EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION CO.-USA, A Delaware Corporation,

Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-05-0466-CVA

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is 

GRANTED. The appellee’s brief is due on September 21, 2015.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of August, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1



TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



August 30, 2004



In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Robert M. McMurrey, Chairman of the Board of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his
knowledge:



1. The Report is in full compliances with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Robert M. McMurrey
|Robert M. McMurrey    
|Chairman of the Board 
|August 30, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3245 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3245

 To amend the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances 
Import and Export Act regarding penalties for cocaine offenses, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 16, 2009

   Mr. Scott of Virginia (for himself, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. 
   Waters, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Nadler of New York, Ms. Zoe 
   Lofgren of California, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Cohen, Ms. 
 Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. 
 Payne, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Paul, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Norton, and 
 Mr. Quigley) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy 
    and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances 
Import and Export Act regarding penalties for cocaine offenses, 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 ``Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act 
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF INCREASED PENALTIES FOR COCAINE OFFENSES WHERE 
              THE COCAINE INVOLVED IS COCAINE BASE.

    (a) Controlled Substances Act.--The following provisions of the 
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) are repealed:
            (1) Clause (iii) of section 401(b)(1)(A).
            (2) Clause (iii) of section 401(b)(1)(B).
            (3) The sentence beginning ``Notwithstanding the preceding 
        sentence'' in section 404(a).
    (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act.--The following 
provisions of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 
U.S.C. 951 et seq.) are repealed:
            (1) Subparagraph (C) of section 1010(b)(1).
            (2) Subparagraph (C) of section 1010(b)(2).
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Wilkins, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 484]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.), rendered April 3, 1996, convicting him of assault in the first degree and assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel rests on matters dehors the record, the claim may not be raised by direct appeal from the judgment. Rosenblatt, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22580]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors 
Meeting.

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

TIME AND DATE: The meeting will be held on October 26, 2017, from 12:00 
Noon to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

PLACE: This meeting will be open to the public via conference call. Any 
interested person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to 
listen and participate in this meeting.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board 
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and, 
to that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

     Issued on: October 12, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-22580 Filed 10-13-17; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
#### KEENAN CORLEY *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 31767)

Bear, Bishop and Lavery, Js.

Argued November 14

officially released December 6, 2011

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

Parent

PVF Capital Corp.



|                                |  |                                            |               |  |                     |  |     |  
|------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------ | ------------- |  | ------------------- |  | --- | -
|Subsidiaries (1)                |  | State or OtherJurisdiction ofIncorporation |               |  | PercentageOwnership | 
|Park View Federal Savings Bank  |  |                                            | United States |  |                     |  | 100 | %
|PVF Service Corporation         |  |                                            | Ohio          |  |                     |  | 100 | %
|PVF Mortgage Corp.              |  |                                            | Ohio          |  |                     |  | 100 | %
|PVF Community Development Corp. |  |                                            | Ohio          |  |                     |  | 100 | %
|Mid Pines Land Co.              |  |                                            | Ohio          |  |                     |  | 100 | %
|PVF Holdings Inc.               |  |                                            | Ohio          |  |                     |  | 100 | %
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amazon Biotech, Inc., a Utah
corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31,
2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Mechael Kanovsky, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Mechael Kanovsky, Ph.D.
-----------------------------------------
Mechael Kanovsky, Ph.D.
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 22, 2006
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, October 17, 2017, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters related to the Corporation's supervision, corporate, and resolution activities.

In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded by Director Richard Cordray (Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), concurred in by Director Keith A. Noreika (Acting Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters which were to be the subject of this meeting on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10).

Dated: October 17, 2017.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-22794 Filed 10-17-17; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determin ed that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10459 Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

$18,140.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, ET AL.,

Defendants,

and

DOUGLAS RAY DUNKINS, JR.,

Claimant-Appellant.

______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas (4:92-cv-0023)

______________________________________________

February 21, 1996 Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Douglas Dunkins appeals the district court's grant of summary

judgment in f avor of the Government in this civil forfeiture

proceeding brought pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). We affirm

for the following reasons.The instant forfeiture of proceeds from illegal drug sales

pursuant to § 881(a)(6) does not constitute "punishment." United

S tates v. Tilley , 18 F.3d 295, 297-300 (5th Cir.), 115 S.Ct. 573

(1994). Because there is no "punishment," there is no double

jeopardy. Id

.

The district court did not err in finding probable cause to

believe that the property at issue was the proceeds of illegal drug

transactions.

Dunkins' argument that he was deprived of a right to appeal to

the district court is without merit because, through his attorney,

Dunkins signed a form consenting to have a magistrate judge conduct

any and all proceedings in his case.

We d o not address Dunkins' argument that the district court

erred in awarding costs because he failed to raise that contention

in the district court.

Finally, Dunkins argues that he did not receive notice that

the Government sought forfeiture of certain firearms seiz ed from

his home. Because the instant proceeding did not involve the

forfeiture of any firearms, we are without jurisdiction to

entertain this claim.

AFFIRMED.
#### Rita F. COGBILL, Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Appellee.

No. 11-1309.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 22, 2011.

Filed: Aug. 1, 2011.

Rita F. Cogbill, Carl Junction, MO, pro se.

Mark S. Naggi, Spec. Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (Beth Phillips, U.S. Atty., Kristi A. Schmidt, Chief Counsel, Region VII, Soc. Sec. Admin., Kansas City, MO, of counsel, on the brief), for appellee.

Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Rita F. Cogbill appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Upon careful review of the record, *see Gates v. Astrue,*627 F.3d 1080, 1082 (8th Cir.2010) (standard of review), we conclude that the administrative law judge (ALJ) gave several valid reasons for his adverse credibility determination, and thus it is entitled to deference, *see Halverson v. Astrue,*600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir.2010); that the ALJ was not required to schedule a consultative mental examination, *see id.*at 933 (ALJ is required to order medical examinations and tests only if medical records before him provide insufficient medical evidence to determine if claimant is disabled); and that the vocational expert’s testimony in response to the ALJ’s properly formulated hypothetical constituted substantial evidence, *see Robson v. Astrue,*526 F.3d 389, 392 (8th Cir.2008).2 Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Robert E. Larsen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

2

. We decline to consider some of Cogbill’s arguments as she cites no supporting authority or her assertions are not supported by the record.
#### Perry WHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant, Evelyn Jackson, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, including the United States Office of Personnel Management, et al., along with and including d.b.a. United States Postal Service, Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Company, Metropolitan (MetLife) Life Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-11998

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 14, 2011.

Perry White, Lauderdale Lakes, FL, pro se.

*907Amanda A. Kessler, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Christopher Gilbert, Un-ger Law Group, Orlando, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before WILSON, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Perry White appeals *pro se*the dismissal of his complaint to recover, as a purported beneficiary, the proceeds of a life insurance policy that had been issued to his brother. White argues that he was entitled to a default judgment against the United States, the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Company, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company because they failed to respond timely to White’s complaint or to request timely an extension of time to respond. The district court denied White’s motion on the ground that the defendants had timely responded to the complaint, and the district court later dismissed White’s complaint with prejudice. We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to enter a default judgment against Metropolitan Life. Metropolitan Life never was in default. White served Metropolitan Life with the summons and complaint on May 26, 2009, and Metropolitan Life responded by timely filing a motion to strike on June 9, 2009. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a)(l)(A)(i). The district court later granted a stay and, after lifting the stay on February 3, 2010, granted Metropolitan Life until February 16, 2010, to respond to the complaint, *see*Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(a)(4). The district court later granted a motion to extend the time to respond until February 24, 2010, *see*Fed. R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A). Metropolitan Life filed an answer to White’s complaint on February 24, 2010.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion by refusing to enter a default judgment against the United States. White failed to “establish a claim or right to relief’ against the United States. Fed. R.Civ.P. 55(d). The district court ruled that White could not “maintain his claim against the United States under the limited waiver of sovereign immunity found in [the] [Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act],” 5 U.S.C. §§ 8701-16, and White did not challenge that decision. Although the district court granted White leave to file an amended complaint, White refused to do so.

The dismissal of White’s complaint is AFFIRMED.