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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         126,457
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,877
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               244,169
<PP&E>                                       4,848,009
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,627,730
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,518,597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          331,458
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,518,597
<SALES>                                      8,350,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,780,756
<CGS>                                        4,462,275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,462,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               314,225
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             131,099
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,873,157
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,568)
<DISCONTINUED>                               3,887,725
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,873,157
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
§ 663.535 What is the process for determining the subsequent eligibility of a provider? ( a ) The Governor must develop a procedure for the Local Board to use in determining the subsequent eligibility of all eligible training providers determined initially eligible under § 663.515 (b) and (c), after: ( 1 ) Soliciting and taking into consideration recommendations from Local Boards and providers of training services within the State;
( 2 ) Providing an opportunity for interested members of the public, including representatives of business and labor organizations, to submit comments on such procedure; and
( 3 ) Designating a specific time period for soliciting and considering the recommendations of Local Boards and providers, and for providing an opportunity for public comment.
( b ) The procedure must be described in the State Plan.
( c ) The procedure must require that: ( 1 ) Providers annually submit performance and cost information as described at WIA section 122(d)(1) and (2), for each program of training services for which the provider has been determined to be eligible, in a time and manner determined by the Local Board;
( 2 ) Providers and programs annually meet minimum performance levels described at WIA section 122(c)(6), as demonstrated utilizing UI quarterly wage records where appropriate.
( d ) The program's performance information must meet the minimum acceptable levels established under paragraph (c)(2) of this section to remain eligible;
( e ) Local Boards may require higher levels of performance for local programs than the levels specified in the procedures established by the Governor. (WIA sec.122(c)(5) and (c)(6).)
( f ) The State procedure must require Local Boards to take into consideration: ( 1 ) The specific economic, geographic and demographic factors in the local areas in which providers seeking eligibility are located, and
( 2 ) The characteristics of the populations served by programs seeking eligibility, including the demonstrated difficulties in serving these populations, where applicable.
( g ) The Local Board retains those programs on the local list that meet the required performance levels and other elements of the State procedures and submits the list, accompanied by the performance and cost information, and any additional required information, to the designated State agency. If the designated State agency determines within 30 days from the receipt of the information that the program does not meet the performance levels established under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the program may be removed from the list. A program retained on the local list and not removed by the designated State agency is considered an eligible program of training services.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 728.67

 728.73

 728.78

 728.84

 728.91

 728.96

 729.02

 729.09

 729.15

 729.24

 729.27

 729.30

 729.36

 729.42

 729.49

 729.56

 729.65

 729.71

 729.88

 730.26

 730.65

 732.01

 732.51

 738.35

 739.08

 739.56

 740.15

 740.54

 739.24

 734.98

 730.29

 1,520

 1,523

 1,525

 1,527

 1,530

 1,532

 1,535

 1,538

 1,540

 1,544

 1,545

 1,547

 1,549

 1,552

 1,555

 1,558

 1,561

 1,564

 1,571

 1,587

 1,603

 1,661

 1,683

 1,951

 1,986

 2,009

 2,038

 2,057

 1,994

 1,793

 1,588

STORAGE

+2

+3

+2

+2

+3

+2

+3

+3

+2

+4

+1

+2

+2

+3

+3

+3

+3

+3

+7

+16

+16

+58

+22

+268

+35

+23

+29

+19

-63

-201

-205

CHANGE

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

4

8

8

29

11

135

18

12

15

10

5

-3

-7

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 37

 98

 96

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2021 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: November 18, 2021

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS +70 273 0 231

ACRE-FEET +70 541 0 458

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 458

 458

 1,518

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

STEELHEAD REPORT

July 2013

Note: Shaded area not verified with CDFW data Preliminary Data - Subject to change

Steelhead Estimated Salvage Steelhead Estimated Loss (Incidental Take) 

Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily SWP Daily CVP Daily Combined Season Combined Daily 

Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag Tagged No Tag In 

DATE Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated

Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Salvage Loss (4.33) Loss (4.33) Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss Loss

1-Jul-13 0000 0 0 551 704 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,876 2,156 6,276 

2-Jul-13 0400 0 4 551 708 0 17 0 0 0 17 1,876 2,173 6,865 

3-Jul-13 0000 0 0 551 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,876 2,173 6,960 4-Jul-13 4000 4 0 555 708 17 0 0 0 17 0 1,894 2,173 6,618 5-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 5,872 6-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,974 7-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,979 8-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,948 9-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 5,969 

10-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 5,755 11-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 5,581 12-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 5,362 13-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,959 14-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 5,211 15-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 5,194 16-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 5,157 17-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,361 

18-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 3,891 

19-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 3,652 20-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,385 21-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,433 22-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,291 23-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,200 24-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,665 25-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 5,296 26-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,743 27-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,500 28-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,211 29-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 5,407 30-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 4,614 31-Jul-13 0000 0 0 555 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,894 2,173 5,819 

Total 4 4 0 0 4 4 555 708 17 17 0 0 17 17 1,894 2,173 159,148 1

Preliminary

Banks Tr
Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   In connection with this Yearly Report of AISystems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen C. Johnston, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
   1. Such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, 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 such Yearly Report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of AISystems, Inc.
  Date: April 14, 2011
  AISYSTEMS INC.By:
/s/ Stephen C. JohnstonStephen C. JohnstonChief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4246 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4246

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the application of the 
means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of 
  reserve components of the Armed Forces and members of the National 
 Guard who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to 
     perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days.

    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 ``National Guard and Reservist Debt 
Relief Extension Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVISTS DEBT RELIEF AMENDMENT.

    Section 4(b) of the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act 
of 2008 (Public Law 110-438; 122 Stat. 5000) is amended by striking 
``7-year'' and inserting ``11-year''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 16, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 4246

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the application of the 
means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of 
  reserve components of the Armed Forces and members of the National 
 Guard who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to 
     perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days.
```
### SUBCHAPTER LXIV—CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF WEAS, PIANKASHAWS, PEORIAS, AND KASKASKIAS: DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENT FUND
488 P.2d 125

#### STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Paul BELCHER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 668.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Aug. 6, 1971.

*76J. Lee Cathey, Carlsbad,, for appellant.

David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Ethan K. Stevens, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Convicted of forgery, Defendant appeals. His sole point on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting a motion for continuance.

■ We affirm.

The motion was filed four days prior to trial and recited that it was necessary to obtain subpoenas for two out-of-state witnesses, who did not testify, and one instate witness, who did testify at trial.

At the hearing on the motion the following facts emerged. Counsel was appointed on August 31, 1970, and talked to defendant about witnesses. No witnesses were named. On December 7, 1970, after notice of a trial setting for December 14, 1970, appointed counsel again consulted defendant. Again, defendant made no mention of witnesses. On December 9, 1970, appointed counsel received a letter from defendant relating to witnesses. This appears to be the first time defendant mentioned witnesses to his counsel. A motion for continuance was filed on December 10, 1970.

During trial the jury was informed of what the two absent witnesses would have testified to if they had been present and that the jury was to “take as true” what this testimony would have been. Sec. 21-8-11, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol.1970). Defendant asserts this procedure, in accordance with Sec. 21-8-11, supra, does not dispose of the asserted error in denying a continuance, because he was prejudiced by the absence of “live” witnesses. Compare State v. Garcia, 82 N.M. 482 (Ct.App.), 483 P.2d 1322, decided April 2, 1971.

The granting or denying of a motion for continuance, based on the absence of a defense witness, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be interferred with except for abuse. State v. Cochran, 79 N.M. 640, 447 P.2d 520 (1968); State v. Ranne, 80 N.M. 188, 453 P.2d 209 (Ct.App.1969).

The record does not disclose an abuse of discretion by the trial court. The record does, however, show a lack of concern and diligence by the defendant in failing to notify his attorney of the witnesses, one of whom was his wife. Defendant will not be heard now to complain. See State v. Deats, 82 N.M. 711 (Ct.App.), 487 P.2d 139, decided June 18, 1971; State v. Gutierrez, 82 N.M. 578, 484 P.2d 1288 (Ct.App.1971).

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

, WOOD and SUTIN, JJ., concur.
Cite as 2013 Ark. 317



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-13-544

TERRICK NOONER APPELLANT

v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion DeliveredSeptember 5, 2013 PRO SE MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRITS AND EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION AND TEMPORARY RELIEF, FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, AND FOR SANCTIONS [SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 63CR-93-133, HON. GRISHAM PHILLIPS, JUDGE]

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS MOOT.


### PER CURIAM In 1993, appellant Terrick Nooner was found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirmed. Nooner v. State , 319 Ark. 335, 891 S.W.2d 366 (1995). The mandate in the case was issued in 1995. On March 25, 2013, appellant filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (1993). The trial court denied the petition, and appellant has lodged an appeal in this court from the order. Now before us are appellant’s motions for appointment of counsel, for extraordinary writs and expedited consideration and temporary relief, for writ of certiorari, and for sanctions to be imposed. As it is clear from the record that appellant could not prevail if the appeal were permitted to go forward, the appeal is dismissed, and the motions are moot. An appeal from an order thatCite as 2013 Ark. 317

denied a petition for postconviction relief will not be permitted to proceed where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Burks v. State , 2013 Ark. 198 (per curiam); Davis v. State , 2013 Ark. 118 (per curiam). The trial court did not err in holding that the Rule 37.1 petition filed by appellant in 2013 was untimely. When a judgment is affirmed on appeal, and the mandate is issued, a petitioner under the Rule is required, pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.2(c)(ii), to file his or her petition with the clerk of the trial court within sixty days of the date that the mandate
was issued. See Maxwell v. State , 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303 (1989). Appellant’s petition was filed approximately eighteen years after the mandate was issued in his case. Accordingly, he did not timely file his petition, and it was subject to dismissal on that basis. Time limitations imposed in Rule 37.2(c) for filing a petition are jurisdictional in nature. Murphy v. State , 2013 Ark. 243 (per curiam); O’Brien v. State , 339 Ark. 138, 3 S.W.3d 332 (1999);
see also Maxwell

, 298 Ark. 329, 767 S.W.2d 303. If the time limitations are not met, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to consider a Rule 37.1 petition. Holliday v. State , 2013 Ark. 47 (per curiam). Where the circuit court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks jurisdiction. Holliday , 2013 Ark. 47 (citing Winnett v. State , 2012 Ark. 404 (per curiam)); see also Clark v. State , 362 Ark. 545, 210 S.W.3d 59 (2005) (citing Priest v. Polk , 322 Ark. 673, 912 S.W.2d 902 (1995)). Appeal dismissed; motions moot.
Terrick Nooner

, pro se appellant. No response.

2
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

I, Michael C. Azar, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Oakmont Acquisition Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business
issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in
this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors:

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 13, 2007



|                                            
|--------------------------------------------
|                                            
|/s/ Michael C. Azar                         
|Michael C. Azar Principal Accounting
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      27,015,000
<SECURITIES>                                   822,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,217,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,817,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,996,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,000
<COMMON>                                       480,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,710,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                71,817,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            16,285,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             718,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (13,840,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (13,840,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (13,840,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)


</TABLE>
### §704. Immunities of courts and witnesses

Members of any service court of a friendly foreign force lawfully exercising jurisdiction in the United States in relation to members of such force, and any witnesses appearing before such service court, shall enjoy the same immunities and privileges as are enjoyed by members of a court martial of the United States and by witnesses appearing before such a court martial.

(June 30, 1944, ch. 326, §4, 58 Stat. 644.)
§ 686.200 How are Job Corps center locations and sizes determined? ( a ) The Secretary must approve the location and size of all Job Corps centers based on established criteria and procedures.
( b ) The Secretary establishes procedures for making decisions concerning the establishment, relocation, expansion, or closing of contract centers.
(No. 6661

#### B. U. Chung, M.D., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Mental Health, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 22, 1972.*

Dr. B. U. Chung, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Perlin, C.J.