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




<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000739710
<NAME> WELLESLEY LEASE INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II B
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         406,700
<SECURITIES>                                    99,576
<RECEIVABLES>                                  101,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                    71,433
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               536,692
<PP&E>                                       1,344,054
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,264,738
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 616,008
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,123
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                    11,299,475
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,740,590)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   616,008
<SALES>                                        286,750
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               601,726
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               159,975
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (48,160)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,984
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                464,970
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            464,970
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   464,970
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    16.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
Filed 9/20/16 P. v. Kessell CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAUL KESSEL L

,

Defendant and Appellant. B270744

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA425000)

THE COURT: *

Appellant Raul Kessel l (Kessel l ) pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine base for sale

in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351.5. He was sentenced to 30 days in

county jail, and was given credit for 30 days in custody. The trial court put Kessel l on
three years of probation

, ordered him to serve 300 hours of community service with

Caltrans , and imposed a $50 lab fee, a $30 surcharg e fee, and a $40 postconvic tion

assessment fine. Subsequently, the trial court held a hearing and revoked Kessell’s

probation. The trial court initially sentenced Kessell to the midterm of three years in

local custody, but then it granted a motion to str ike a prison prior and sentenced Kessell

to the low term of two years in local custody. In connection therewith, he was given 219

days of custody credit.

* ASHMANN

- GERST , Acting P. J., CHAVEZ , J., HOFFSTADT , J.2

Kessel l now appeal s from the judgment, and he does not challenge the validity of

his guilty plea

. Hi s appointed counsel filed a no merit brief pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 ( Wende ) raising no issues for us to consider . On May 24

, 2016, we notified Kessel l of the no merit brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days,

a brief o r letter setting forth any arguments supporting his appeal. He did not submit

either a brief or letter. After review of the record, we conclude Kessel l is not entitled to

appellate relief.

We are satisfied that Kessel l ’s counsel complied with her respons ibilities. We

conclude that Kessel l has received adequate and effective appellate review of the

judgment entered against him by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende

procedure, and our review of the record. ( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278;

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123

- 124.)

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.
### **Subchapter D—Ozone-Depleting Chemicals, Etc.**

Sec.
4681.
Imposition of tax.
4682.
Definitions and special rules.
HRP ((b)(1) “other”) FY12 Projects, 9/21/2016

Project Proposed Activity Funding

F-2

Arroyo Hondo Plateau 

Habitat Protection Project

BLM, Hollister

Fee title acquisition of 280 acres to 

promote protection of giant kangaroo 

rat habitat on the south side of Arroyo 

Hondo Plateau in Fresno County. 

Species to benefit include San Joaquin 

kit fox, giant kangaroo rat, and San 

Joaquin woolly-threads. Fresno County

**$168,000

F-3

Stubblefield Ranch 

Acquisition Project

BLM, Bakersfield

Fee title acquisition of a 1,614-acre 

property located at the southeastern 

end of the Carrizo Plain National 

Monument in Kern and San Luis Obispo 

counties. Species to benefit include 

San Joaquin kit fox, giant kangaroo rat, 

blunt-nosed leopard lizard, California 

jewelflower, Kern primrose sphinx moth, 

and California condor. Kern and San 

Luis Obispo Counties

**$108,970

(Note: the 

CVPCP initially 

provided 

$574,567. 

$300,000 in EOY 

funds were later 

approved and 

transferred for a 

total of $874,567. 

Total for CVPCP 

and HRP is 

$983,537.)

A-2 

Acquisition of Habitat for 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species at 

Pixley National Wildlife 

Refuge

USWFS Regional Realty 

Office

Fee title acquisition of 175.5 acres for 

inclusion in the Pixley NWR. Species to 

benefit include Tipton kangaroo rat, San 

Joaquin kit fox, and blunt-nosed leopard 

lizard. Tulare County

*$389,303

(Note: $22,036 

was added in 

2013 for FWS 

realty costs. The 

total project cost 

is $411,339. )

C-3

Reintroduction of the 

Metcalf Canyon Jewelflower 

at Tulare Hill in Southern 

Santa Clara County

Santa Clara University

The main objective is to reintroduce the 

Metcalf Canyon jewelflower at three 

sites on Tulare Hill, and supplement an 

existing population at Motorcycle 

County Park in Santa Clara County. 

Species to benefit is the Metcalf 

Canyon jewelflower. Santa Clara 

County

*$157,231

(Note: the 

CVPCP is 

providing 

$115,737. Total: 

$272,968)

FY 2012 Allocation

$1,500,000

BOR

USFWS

$750,000

$750,000

Project Costs Total: BOR -$546,534
Project Proposed Activity Funding

$1,063,504 USFWS -$276,970

Program Administration & 

Overhead Costs Total:

$436,496

BOR

USFWS

-$203,466

-$233,030

FY 2012 Deobligation of 

funds for Lower Silver 

Creek Acquisition project

USFWS (funds were put towards the 

FY 2015 Kern Primrose Sphinx Moth, 

Walker Basin Acquisition project)

-$240,000

* BOR funded

** USFWS funded
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Michael Chang, CFO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Myoffiz, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

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

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and we 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 registrant is made known to
us by others within the Corporation, particularly during the period in which
this annual report is being prepared;

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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 registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

      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 registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.




Date:  May 28, 2004

                              /s/ MICHAEL CHANG
                              ---------------------------
                              Michael Chang
                              CFO
#### § 1821.13 What if the specific program regulations conflict with these regulations?

If there is a conflict, the specific program regulations will govern and the conflicting portion of these regulations will not apply.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.M.H.,

A CHILD

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00257-CV

Appeal from

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2012DCM02211)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court to determine whether it should be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. Finding that Appellant did not timely file the notice of appeal, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

A civil appeal is perfected when the notice of appeal is timely filed. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.1, 

26.1; see Restrepo v. First National Bank of Dona Ana County, N.M., 892 S.W.2d 237, 238 

(Tex.App.--El Paso 1995, no writ). If the notice of appeal is untimely, the appellate court lacks 

jurisdiction and must dismiss the case. See Charette v. Fitzgerald, 213 S.W.3d 505, 509 

(Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.). On July 25, 2014, the trial court entered an 

order terminating Appellant’s parental rights. By statute and by rule, this is an accelerated 

appeal. TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. § 109.002(a)(West 2014); TEX.R.APP.P. 28.4(a)(2). In an 

accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal must be filed within twenty days after the judgment or 
- 2 -

order is signed. TEX.R.APP.P. 26.1(b). Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to have been filed 

not later than August 14, 2014, but he did not file it until September 4, 2014. An appellate court 

may extend the time in which to file the notice of appeal provided it is filed with the trial court 

clerk within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal and a motion for 

extension of time if filed in the appellate court. See TEX.R.APP.P. 26.3. The notice of appeal 

was filed more than fifteen days after the deadline for filing it. Because Appellant’s notice of 

appeal was not filed by the due date or within fifteen days of the due date, we do not have 

jurisdiction of this appeal. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

October 8, 2014

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Rivera, J., not participating)
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

DAY HIGH

 589

 568

 517

 512

 539

 544

 558

 546

 530

 545

 595

 628

 623

 555

 393

 321

 311

 307

 328

 329

 310

 321

 330

 324

 332

 341

 358

 371

 413

 429

 540

 471

 484

 475

 490

 489

 500

 506

 506

 517

 511

 598

 540

 396

 327

 298

 279

 280

 304

 281

 274

 308

 318

 305

 312

 324

 338

 341

 370

 412

 560

 498

 499

 494

 510

 520

 538

 529

 516

 532

 536

 611

 576

 459

 359

 308

 296

 291

 315

 310

 287

 314

 326

 313

 324

 332

 345

 354

 390

 418

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

SEPTEMBER 2018 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: October 4, 2018

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

30 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

30 DAY

AVG 

MEAN

 560

 1,058

 1,557

 2,051

 2,561

 3,081

 3,619

 4,148

 4,664

 5,196

 5,732

 6,343

 6,919

 7,378

 7,737

 8,045

 8,341

 8,632

 8,947

 9,257

 9,544

 9,858

 10,184

 10,497

 10,821

 11,153

 11,498

 11,852

 12,242

 12,660

 560

 529

 519

 513

 512

 514

 517

 519

 518

 520

 521

 529

 532

 527

 516

 503

 491

 480

 471

 463

 454

 448

 443

 437

 433

 429

 426

 423

 422

 422

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

30 DAY ACCUM MEAN and 30 DAY AVG MEAN columns are 30 day runnings, except for April 1 and September 1, 

 where they do not go back 30 days.

VERNALIS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 22 (Tuesday, February 3, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5012-5013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2186]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2003-16749; Airspace Docket No. 03-ACE-93]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Beloit, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a direct final rule; request for comments 
that was published in the Federal Register on Monday, January 12, 2004 
(69 FR 1661) [FR Doc. 04-483]. It corrects an error in the Beloit, KS 
Class E airspace area legal description.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on 0901 UTC, April 15, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, 
Airspace Branch, ACE-520C, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 
(816) 329-2525.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register Document 04-483, published on Monday, January 12, 
2004 (69 FR 1661) modified Class E airspace at Beloit, KS. The 
modification was to change the name of the airport at Beloit, KS from 
Beloit Municipal Airport to Moritz Memorial Airport, to enlarge the 
controlled airspace area around Moritz Memorial Airport for proper 
protection of diverse departures and to bring the Beloit, KS Class E 
airspace area legal description into compliance with FAA Order 7400.2E, 
Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. However, the Beloit, KS Class 
E airspace area legal description was published incorrectly.

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Beloit, KS 
Class E airspace, as published in the Federal Register on Monday, 
January 12, 2004

[[Page 5013]]

(69 FR 1661) (FR Doc. 04-483) is corrected as follows:


Sec. 71.1  [Corrected]

0
On page 1662, Column 2, paragraph headed ``ACE E5 Beloit, KS,'' first 
line, change ``Moritz Memorial Airport, IA'' to read ``Beloit, Moritz 
Memorial Airport, KS.''

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on January 13, 2004.
Elizabeth S. Wallis,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 04-2186 Filed 2-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### § 3154.2 Additional bonding.

The authorized officer may increase the amount of any bond that is required under this subpart after determining that additional coverage is needed to ensure protection of the lands or resources.
§ 3503.44 How will BLM treat Indian information submitted under the Indian Mineral Development Act? Under the Indian Mineral Development Act of 1982 (IMDA) (25 U.S.C. 2101 *et seq.*), the Department of the Interior will hold as privileged proprietary information of the affected Indian or Indian tribe— ( a ) All findings forming the basis of the Secretary's intent to approve or disapprove any Minerals Agreement under IMDA; and
( b ) All projections, studies, data, or other information concerning a Minerals Agreement under IMDA, regardless of the date received, related to— ( 1 ) The terms, conditions, or financial return to the Indian parties;
( 2 ) The extent, nature, value, or disposition of the Indian mineral resources; or
( 3 ) The production, products, or proceeds thereof.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4527 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4527

To amend section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit 
immigration officers and agents of the Department of Homeland Security 
   from wearing clothing or other items bearing the word ``police''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 13, 2022

  Mr. Booker introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit 
immigration officers and agents of the Department of Homeland Security 
   from wearing clothing or other items bearing the word ``police''.

    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 ``Combating Deceptive Immigration 
Enforcement Practices Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON IMMIGRATION OFFICER UNIFORMS.

    Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(i) Immigration officers and agents of the Department of Homeland 
Security, including officers and agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection, may not wear any 
clothing, accessories, or other items on their person that bear the 
word `police' while performing duties under the immigration laws.''.
                                 <all>
```
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

DAY HIGH

 994

 1,050

 1,059

 1,062

 1,054

 1,055

 1,075

 1,082

 1,085

 1,089

 1,082

 1,064

 997

 990

 980

 981

 950

 864

 867

 844

 747

 771

 822

 840

 909

 926

 924

 956

 950

 998

 1,046

 1,026

 1,018

 1,037

 1,028

 1,066

 1,069

 1,079

 1,056

 1,000

 975

 934

 954

 949

 861

 820

 828

 698

 696

 735

 771

 815

 836

 902

 898

 908

 964

 1,013

 1,055

 1,042

 1,032

 1,046

 1,043

 1,073

 1,078

 1,085

 1,065

 1,033

 986

 960

 966

 971

 894

 840

 843

 756

 728

 750

 793

 830

 865

 915

 909

 922

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

FEBRUARY 2009 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 6, 2009

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

30 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

30 DAY

AVG 

MEAN

 28,840

 28,903

 29,007

 29,087

 29,137

 29,210

 29,285

 29,393

 29,493

 29,599

 29,638

 29,664

 29,638

 29,594

 29,542

 29,513

 29,403

 29,232

 29,066

 28,824

 28,599

 28,426

 28,313

 28,263

 28,223

 28,271

 28,328

 28,291

 961

 963

 967

 970

 971

 974

 976

 980

 983

 987

 988

 989

 988

 986

 985

 984

 980

 974

 969

 961

 953

 948

 944

 942

 941

 942

 944

 943

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

30 DAY ACCUM MEAN and 30 DAY AVG MEAN columns are 30 day runnings, except for April 1 and September 1, 

 where they do not go back 30 days.

VERNALIS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 21, 2012 

t0514 

Order 

 

May 21, 2012 

144656 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 144656 

 COA: 307142 

Genesee CC: 09-025585-FC 

RAKEEM ANTONIO CHANEY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 6, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### William F. Reilly, Respondent, v. William M. Barrett, as President of the Adams Express Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, unless within twenty days plaintiff stipulate to reduce the verdict to the sum of $500, in which event the judgment, as so reduced, and the order are affirmed, without costs. Wo opinion. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr and Rich, JJ., concurred; Thomas, J., dissented.
### §677c. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 27, 1954, ch. 1009, §4, 68 Stat. 868, which related to transfer of members from full-blood roll to mixed-blood group, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
#### Anna Cavaretta, as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas, Cavaretta, Deceased, Respondent, v. Continental Industrial Engineers, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and McCurn, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

     Certification pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) of the Securities
                    Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ELECTRONIC SENSOR
TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2007 (the
"Report"), I, Philip Yee, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.


Dated: May 14, 2007                   /s/ Philip Yee
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Philip Yee
                                      Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial
                                      Officer (Principal Financial and
                                      Accounting Officer)