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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         496,307
<SECURITIES>                                   33,671
<RECEIVABLES>                                  783,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    29,293
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,342,937
<PP&E>                                         313,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (124,995)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,057,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          205,805
<BONDS>                                        27,364
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    550,000
<COMMON>                                       8,143,391
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,057,271
<SALES>                                        1,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,588
<CGS>                                          822,130
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  822,130
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               130,582
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             111,954
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (951,124)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (820,542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (951,124)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
#### Maude H. Hill v. Hudson View Gardens, Inc.

Motion for an order settling the proposed case on appeal denied without prejudice, however, to a renewal thereof after the record has been settled by the trial court. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
#### Stephen Munford et al., Appellants, v Pressmad Corp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[716 NYS2d 303]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Esposito, J.), entered October 25, 1999, which denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants-respondents’ liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Issues of fact preclude summary judgment, including whether plaintiff’s fall was caused not by defendants’ failure to provide him with a safe scaffold or ladder but by a seizure or fainting episode that plaintiff experienced just before he fell, and whether the injury that plaintiff alleges was sustained in a prior accident. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rubin, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2****Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification of Principal Financial Officer**I, Brian Fontana, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of I-Sector Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 14, 2005 By /s/ BRIAN FONTANA   Brian Fontana, Vice President   and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 31.1**
I, Michael G. Cherkasky, certify that
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three monthsended March 31, 2004 of Kroll Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation;and  c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.   By: /s/ Michael G. Cherkasky   Michael G. Cherkasky Chief Executive Officer Kroll Inc.
Date: May 7, 2004
35
Order entered January 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01516-CR

KASEY DEMOND JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-33686-Y

ORDER

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to issue 

the mandate in this appeal INSTANTER.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
### §5123. References

Except as otherwise specifically provided, any reference in this chapter to "State and local", "State or local", "State, and local", "State, or local", or "State, local" (including plurals) with respect to governments or officials and any reference to a "local government" in sections 5172(d)(3) and 5184 of this title is deemed to refer also to Indian tribal governments and officials, as appropriate.

(Pub. L. 93–288, title I, §103, as added Pub. L. 113–2, div. B, §1110(d), Jan. 29, 2013, 127 Stat. 49.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–288, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 143. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5121 of this title and Tables.
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

Antisocial BehaviorBehavior ChangeBehavior DisordersBehavior ProblemsCaregiver Child RelationshipChange StrategiesClassroom TechniquesInterventionPreschool ChildrenPreschool EducationPreschool TeachersProblem ChildrenReflective TeachingResource MaterialsStaff DevelopmentTeacher Student RelationshipTraining

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
#### § 1506.38 Under what circumstances may USADF terminate collection actions?

USADF may terminate collection actions including accrued interest, penalty and administrative costs, where the debt principal does not exceed $100,000. If the debt exceeds $100,000, USADF must obtain the approval from DOJ to terminate further collection actions. Unless otherwise provided for by DOJ regulations, requests to terminate collection on debts in excess of $100,000 are referred to the Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, for approval.
#### Zelalem NISHAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73700.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007 *.

Filed March 15, 2007.

Teresa Salazar, Law Offices of Martin Resendez, Guajardo A. Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Genevieve Holm, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Zelalem Nishan, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen to reapply for asylum based on changed country conditions and to remand for the purpose of applying for adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion, *see Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004), *amended by*404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nishan’s motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it more than four years after the BIA’s November 8, 2001 order and failed to demonstrate that he qualified for any exception to the ninety-day time limit. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Nishan did not provide sufficient evidence that conditions in Etho-pia have changed so that he now has a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Malty v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that the critical question is “whether circumstances have changed, sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153,1159 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Sunnybrook Realty Co. Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v. State of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

(Claim No. 32844.)

—Motion to amend the order of this court, entered on the 3d day of August, 1960 denied, without costs.
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 Communications Commission

          - [DA 04-260] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission. 

# ACTION:

Notice of extension of time. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Commission has extended the deadline to file oppositions to the Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification filed in                         *Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices and Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment,*                         CS Docket No. 97-80 and PP Docket No. 00-67 and                         *Digital Broadcast Content Protection,*                         MB Docket No. 02-230 to March 10, 2004.                     

# DATES:

Oppositions due March 10, 2004; replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Mort, (202) 418-1043. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    By a document previously published in the                     **Federal Register**                    , 69 FR 3361, January 23, 2004, the Commission established February 9, 2004 as the deadline to file oppositions to the Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification filed in                     *Implementation of Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices and Compatibility Between Cable Systems and Consumer Electronics Equipment,*                     CS Docket No. 97-80 and PP Docket No. 00-67 and                     *Digital Broadcast Content Protection,*                     MB Docket No. 02-230. By Order, DA 04-260, February 2, 2004, the Commission has extended this deadline to March 10, 2004.                 

Federal Communications Commission. 

William Johnson, 

Deputy Chief, Media Bureau. 

[FR Doc. 04-2731 Filed 2-6-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20275

Summary Calendar

FELICIA N. JONES,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-MC-634

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Felicia N. Jones, who is subject to a preclusion order in the Southern 

District of Texas, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to 

appeal the district court’s order denying her motion seeking “reconsideration”

of the court’s order denying her motion for leave to file a complaint and to 

appeal the district court’s subsequent order striking additional motions. 

Because Jones has failed to present any coherent challenge to the district 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 13, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-20275 Document: 00512532055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2014
No. 13-20275

court’s orders, she has “effectively abandoned” those claims. Mapes v. Bishop, 

541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008). Jones has not shown that her appeal 

“involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). Jones’s 

motion to proceed IFP is denied. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is 

dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

This court has issued two prior sanction warnings to Jones, warning her 

that any future frivolous pleadings filed by her in this court or in any court 

subject to the jurisdiction of this court would subject her to sanctions and 

instructing Jones to review any pending matters to ensure that they are not 

frivolous. See Jones v. Greenway Mercedes, 534 F. App’x 244 (5th Cir. 2013); 

Jones v. Vouitton, No. 12-20562, 2013 WL 5916782, at *1 (5th Cir. May 28, 

2013) (unpublished). In the light of Jones’s failure to heed our previous 

warnings, we conclude that sanctions are appropriate. Jones is ordered to pay 

$100 to the clerk of this court. Until this sanction is paid in full, Jones is barred 

from filing, in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction, any 

pleading without first seeking and obtaining leave of the forum court. Jones 

is warned that future frivolous filings will invite the imposition of progressively 

more severe sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and 

restrictions on her ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject 

to this court’s jurisdiction. Jones should review any pending matters and move 

to dismiss any that are frivolous. 

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; MOTION DENIED; 

SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2

 Case: 13-20275 Document: 00512532055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      11,833,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  328,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,358,000
<PP&E>                                       9,562,200
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,190,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,895,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,274,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          141,200
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,375,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,895,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               778,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  418,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,125,700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,685,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,687,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  78,900
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,608,100)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 64

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 64 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

#### § 64.6 Request for further information.

The Department of State may request the foreign government to supply additional information.
#### § 234.9 No acceleration of Eligible Notes.

Eligible Notes shall not be subject to acceleration, in whole or in part, by USAID, the Noteholder or any other party. USAID shall not have the right to pay any amounts in respect of the Eligible Notes other than in accordance with the original payment terms of such Eligible Notes.
#### BYRNES, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN ST. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 10, 1905.)

Action by Kate Byrnes against the Metropolitan Street Railway Company. B. H. Ames, for appellant. A. E. Woodruff, for respondent. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.