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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                DEC-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                             30,494
<SECURITIES>                                    1,021,053
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,178,587
<ALLOWANCES>                                       96,133
<INVENTORY>                                       698,349
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,020,233
<PP&E>                                          2,775,226
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,158,156
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  5,351,576
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             490,166
<BONDS>                                           162,654
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            2,307
<OTHER-SE>                                      4,696,449
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    5,351,576
<SALES>                                         3,280,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                3,280,316
<CGS>                                           1,798,052
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1,798,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 12,183
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (390,352)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (390,352)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (390,352)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.18)



</TABLE>
### §300dd–31. Grants for anonymous testing

The Secretary may make grants to the States for the purpose of providing opportunities for individuals—

(1) to undergo counseling and testing with respect to the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome without being required to provide any information relating to the identity of the individuals; and

(2) to undergo such counseling and testing through the use of a pseudonym.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXIV, §2431, as added Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §211, Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3090.)
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal No. 05-04]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/OPS-ADMIN, (703) 604-6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 05-04 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: December 21, 2004.

Jeannette Owings-Ballard,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 77736)          ( print page 77737)          ( print page 77738)          ( print page 77739)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. 04-28265  Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
### §3171. Designation of economic development districts

#### (a) In general

In order that economic development projects of broad geographic significance may be planned and carried out, the Secretary may designate appropriate economic development districts in the United States, with the concurrence of the States in which the districts will be wholly or partially located, if—

(1) the proposed district is of sufficient size or population, and contains sufficient resources, to foster economic development on a scale involving more than a single area described in section 3161(a) of this title;

(2) the proposed district contains at least 1 area described in section 3161(a) of this title; and

(3) the proposed district has a comprehensive economic development strategy that—

(A) contains a specific program for intra-district cooperation, self-help, and public investment; and

(B) is approved by each affected State and by the Secretary.

#### (b) Authorities

The Secretary may, under regulations promulgated by the Secretary—

(1) invite the States to determine boundaries for proposed economic development districts;

(2) cooperate with the States—

(A) in sponsoring and assisting district economic planning and economic development groups; and

(B) in assisting the district groups in formulating comprehensive economic development strategies for districts; and

(3) encourage participation by appropriate local government entities in the economic development districts.

(Pub. L. 89–136, title IV, §401, as added Pub. L. 105–393, title I, §102(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3608.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3171, Pub. L. 89–136, title IV, §403, Aug. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 562; Pub. L. 91–304, §1(d), July 6, 1970, 84 Stat. 375; Pub. L. 92–65, title I, §108, Aug. 5, 1971, 85 Stat. 167; Pub. L. 93–46, §4, June 18, 1973, 87 Stat. 96; Pub. L. 93–423, §7, Sept. 27, 1974, 88 Stat. 1161; Pub. L. 94–487, title I, §115, Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2335; Pub. L. 96–506, §1(7), Dec. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 2745; Pub. L. 97–35, title XVIII, §1821(a)(6), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 766, authorized Secretary to designate economic development districts and centers, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–393, §102(a).

A prior section 401 of Pub. L. 89–136 was classified to section 3161 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–393, §102(a).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Feb. 11, 1999, see section 105 of Pub. L. 105–393, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

REQUEST

FOR CALCULATIONS 

FOR TRIAL

Both sides are invited to run calculations to ascertain how the fund would have done if the

25-percent non-guaranteed mortgaged-back securities limitation had been honored with the

excess over the 25 percent being: (a) kept in cash (Calculation One), and (b) distributed pro rata

among the other non-guaranteed mortgage-back securities investments (up to the limit of any

other industry limitation) (Calculation Two). These should then be pared down to those who

were shareholders as of the date of the mortgage-back securities industry limitation deletion. 

This should then be compared to the way it did turn out. This should be done in time for each

side to depose the experts on these calculations reasonably before trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02983-WHA Document 27 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Katherine Allen, Respondent, v. Kenneth Allen, Appellant.

In a proceeding by a wife against her husband to compel support, the husband appeals from an order of the Domestic Relations Court of the City of New York, Family Court Division, Queens County, made December 6, 1961, denying his motion to vacate a prior order of said court, dated January 18, 1957, which continued its earlier order, made December 17, 1953, requiring him to pay $37 a week for the support of the wife and their infant child. Appeal dismissed, without costs, and without prejudice to any proceedings which the husband may deem proper, to vacate or modify the original order of December 17, 1953 on the basis of the decree of divorce subsequently obtained by him in the State of Nevada. The order appealed from is not a final order; only such an order is appealable (N. Y. City Dom. Rel. Ct. Act, § 58). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEONARD L. PERALTA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et

al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-5435 SI

JUDGMENT

In accordance with this Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,

judgment is hereby entered against plaintiff and in favor of defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

Dated: February 22, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05435-SI Document 38 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
(32b)








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Emergent Group Inc. (the “registrant”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, William M. McKay,
Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1) The
report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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








August
      7, 2009/s/
                William M. McKayWilliam
      M. McKayChief
      Financial Officer
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANK J. LAEREMAN,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-0972-MHP

[Proposed] 

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME 

UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

 ORDER 

For the reasons stated by the parties at the February 22, 2010 status conference, the

Court finds that the ends of justice served by continuing the trial setting outweigh the best

interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial because additional time is

required to allow for continuity of counsel and to allow defendant Frank Laereman and

his counsel, Geoffrey Hansen, adequate time to review the government’s discovery; to

prepare this matter for trial; and to prepare witnesses for trial. 

IT IS ORDERED that the period of delay from February 22, 2010 through March 8,

2010 shall be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C., § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(B)(iv) as the ends

of justice served by this continuance allowing for continuity of counsel and for adequate 

//

Case 3:09-cr-00972-MHP Document 18 Filed 03/04/10 Page 1 of 2
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

[Proposed] Order Excluding Time 2

Under the Speedy Trial Act

(No. CR 09-0972 MHP)

preparation outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.

 ORDERED this ____ day of March, 2010 at San Francisco, California

 

MARILYN H. PATEL

United States District Judge

3rd

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00972-MHP Document 18 Filed 03/04/10 Page 2 of 2
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-40448 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CARLOS ALVEAR-OLIVE, also known as Eduardo Renteria-Maldonado, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-286-1
Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Alvear-Olive has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders
v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Alvear-Olive has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with
c o u n s el’ s a s s e s s m e nt that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 1 9, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40448 Document: 00511699170 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/19/2011No. 11-40448

counsel is excused from further responsibilities he r e i n, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R . R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-40448 Document: 00511699170 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/19/2011
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 64 FR 54540, Oct. 7, 1999.

§ 63.5 Grants to foreign participants to study. A citizen or national of a foreign country who has been awarded a grant to study may be entitled to any or all of the following benefits when authorized by the Agency: ( a ) *Transportation.* Accommodations, as authorized, on steamship, airplane, railway, or other means of conveyance. For travel in a privately owned vehicle, reimbursement will be accordance with the provisions of the Federal Travel Regulations.
( b ) *Excess baggage.* Excess baggage as deemed necessary by the Agency.
( c ) *Per diem allowance.* Per diem allowance in lieu of subsistence expenses while traveling ( 1 ) from point of entry in the United States, its territories or possessions to orientation centers and while in attendance at such centers for purposes of orientation, not to exceed 30 days,
( 2 ) to educational institutions of affiliation, and
( 3 ) to point of departure and while participating in authorized field trips or conferences, shall be established by the Secretary of State from time to time, within limitations prescribed by law.
( d ) *Allowances.* ( 1 ) A maintenance allowance while present and in attendance at an educational institution, facility or organization, and
( 2 ) A travel allowance in lieu of per diem while traveling to and from the United States may be established by the Secretary of State, within limitations prescribed by law.
( e ) *Tuition.* Tuition and related fees for approved courses of study.
( f ) *Books and educational materials allowance.* A reasonable allowance for books and educational materials.
( g ) *Tutoring assistance.* Special tutoring assistance in connection with approved courses of study.
( h ) *Advance of funds.* Advance of funds including per diem.
### §5505. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 93–409, §7, Sept. 3, 1974, 88 Stat. 1073, authorized and directed Administrator and Secretary to prepare a comprehensive plan for conduct of development and demonstration activities under section 5503 and 5504, such plan to be transmitted to President and Congress within 120 days after Sept. 3, 1974.
#### KENNEDY, Appellant v. SULLIVAN, Respondent (SULLIVAN, Defendant).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 23, 1903.)

Action by Mary A. Kennedy against George T. Sullivan and Nettie E. Sullivan.

No opinion. Leave to withdraw appeal granted, without costs.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 11104]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04293]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

[Public Notice: 2014-6004]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals Submissions, 
and Approvals

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

    Form Title: EIB 95-09 Letter of Interest Application.

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Banks of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    The Letter of Interest (LI) is an indication of Export-Import (Ex-
Im) Bank's willingness to consider financing a given export 
transaction. Ex-Im Bank uses the requested information to determine the 
applicability of the proposed export transaction and determines whether 
or not to consider financing that transaction.
    The form can be reviewed at: http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/95-9-li-1.pdf

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2014 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on 
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank 
of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title and Form Number: EIB 95-09 Letter of Interest Application.
    OMB Number: 3048-0005.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: The Letter of Interest (LI) is an indication of 
Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank's willingness to consider financing a given 
export transaction. Ex-Im Bank uses the requested information to 
determine the applicability of the proposed export transaction system 
prompts and determines whether or not to consider financing that 
transaction.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S. goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 540.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.5 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 270.
    Frequency of Reporting of Use: On occasion.
    Government Reviewing Time per Year: 270.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $11,475.
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $13,770.

Bonita Jones-McNeil,
Records Management Analyst, Records Management Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-04293 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
#### In the Matter of Thomas M. Ryder et al., Respondents, v Garden City School District, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 97]

—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), dated January 20, 2000, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

On October 7, 1998, the respondent Thomas M. Ryder, then a student at Garden City High School, allegedly was injured during football practice when he was hit by another student. Approximately 11 months later, the respondents commenced the instant proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim on the appellant, the Garden City School District.

We agree with the appellant that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the respondents leave to serve a late notice of claim. The respondents did not seek leave to serve a late notice of claim until approximately 11 months after the accident, and they failed to proffer any excuse for this delay *(see, Pierce v New York City Hous. Auth.,*43 AD2d 842).

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the appellant acquired actual knowledge of the facts constituting the negligent supervision claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter so as to obviate prejudice to the appellant. While the appellant’s Athletic Director filled out an accident *389claim form two days after the incident, the form indicated only that Thomas M. Ryder was hit and injured by another player during supervised football practice. This form cannot fairly be said to have apprised the appellant of the claim that school personnel negligently failed to supervise students *(see, Matter of Dunlea v Mahopac Cent. School Dist.,*232 AD2d 558; *accord, Matter of Baldi v Mt. Sinai School Dist.,*254 AD2d 414).

Accordingly, the appellant had no reason to conduct a prompt investigation into the purported negligence, and it therefore would be prejudiced if compelled to prepare a defense to the claim at this late date *(see, Matter of Dunlea v Mahopac Cent. School Dist., supra).*Given these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have denied the petition. Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Friedmann, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.