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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          16,273
<SECURITIES>                                    2,3353
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,687
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               238,677
<PP&E>                                          35,291
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 359,853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          359,133
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           165
<OTHER-SE>                                    (15,498)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   359,853
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,799
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  107,058<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (92)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,158)<F1>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,158)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                     (25,730)
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,888)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.20)
<FN>
<F1>Includes equity in income of affiliate of $83 and minority interest of $2.018.
<F2>Includes gain on investment of $229.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### § 308.6 Reports regarding changes in systems.

The agency shall provide to Congress and the Office of Management and Budget advance notice of any proposal to establish or alter any system of records as defined herein. This report will be submitted in accord with guidelines provided by the Office of Management and Budget.
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CR 09-1059 JSW

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CSBN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

W. DOUGLAS SPRAGUE (CSBN 202121)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue; Box 36055

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7128

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

NICOLE L. BUCHAN,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-1059 JSW

[PROPOSED] ORDER AND STIPULATION

EXCLUDING TIME FROM DECEMBER

17, 2009, TO FEBRUARY 11, 2010, FROM

THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION

(18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A))

The parties appeared before the Court on December 17, 2009. The Court enters this order

scheduling a status hearing before the Honorable Jeffrey S. White on February 11, 2010, at 2:30

p.m., and documenting the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(7)(A), from December 17, 2009, to and including February 11, 2010. The parties

agreed, and the Court found and held, as follows:

1. The defendant agreed to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to

grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny defense counsel reasonable time

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence and the need

for defense counsel to review the discovery the government produced after defendant made her

initial appearance before a magistrate judge in the Northern District of California, which

Case 3:09-cr-01059-JSW Document 7 Filed 01/04/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cr-01059-JSW Document6 Filed01/04/10 Page1 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

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CR 09-1059 JSW 2

occurred on December 1, 2009. 

2. Accordingly, the Court found that the ends of justice served by excluding the period

from December 17, 2009, to and including February 11, 2010, outweigh the best interest of the

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Id. § 3161(h)(7)(A). 

3. Therefore, and with the consent of the defendant and her attorney, the Court ordered

that the period from December 17, 2009, to and including February 11, 2010, be excluded from

Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv). 

4. The Court scheduled a status hearing on February 11, 2010, at 2:30 p.m. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: December 31, 2009 _________/s/_______________________

W. DOUGLAS SPRAGUE

Assistant United States Attorney

DATED: January 4, 2010 ___/s/_____________________________

 MELISSA WEINBERGER

Attorney for Defendant, Nicole L. Buchan

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January ____, 2010 ________________________________

HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Court Judge

Case3:09-cr-01059-JSW Document6 Filed01/04/10 Page2 of 2

4

Case 3:09-cr-01059-JSW Document 7 Filed 01/04/10 Page 2 of 2
1 

### NUMBER 13 - 1 3 - 00503 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ROEL CERDA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1
Relator, Roel Cerda, proceeding pro se, filed a p etition for writ of mandamus on September 20, 2013 , through which he seeks to compel the trial court to con sider and rule on relator’s motion for nunc pro tunc judgment. To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or j udicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct

. of App

. at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App.

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

2007) (orig. proceeding)

. If relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denie d. See id

. I t is relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ( “ Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show hims elf entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks. ” ). In addition to other requirements, relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concis e argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record

. ” See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.3. In this regard, the relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See
id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). Relator has not included with his peti tion an appendix or record sufficient to support his claim for relief. Accordingly, t he Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain m andamus relief. See State ex rel. Young , 236 S.W.3d at 210. R elator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM
Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 25th day of September , 2013

.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 19, 2015

No. 04-15-00428-CR

Jessica Yvette GARANZUAY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 420081

Honorable Wayne A. Christian, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due on September 4, 2015. On September 15, 2015, we 

granted appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief and ordered appellant’s brief to 

be filed by October 5, 2015. Appellant’s brief has not been filed. 

We ORDER appellant’s attorney to file appellant’s brief on or before November 3, 2015. 

If appellant’s brief is not filed by that date, we will abate this appeal to the trial court for an 

abandonment hearing. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2).

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 15.1







CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Amendment
No. 1 to Registration Statement on Form F-3 of our report dated March 30, 2021, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Huadi
International Group Co., Ltd. and its subsidiaries appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A (Amendment No. 1) of Huadi International
Group Co., Ltd. and its subsidiaries as of September 30, 2020 and for the year then ended.



We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading “Experts” appearing therein.



/s/ Briggs & Veselka Co.



Briggs & Veselka Co.

Houston, Texas

February 15, 2023
ex10_2.htm









Exhibit 10.2












September 1, 2010












Playboy Enterprises, Inc.


2706 Media Center Drive


Los Angeles, CA  90065


Attn:  Gary Rosenson







Dear Gary:







Reference is made to that certain Amended And Restated Affiliation And License Agreement For DTH Satellite Exhibition Of Programming between DIRECTV, Inc. ("Affiliate") and Playboy Entertainment Group and Spice Hot Entertainment, Inc. ("Programmer") made as of August 1, 2007 as extended by the Letter Agreements dated October 12, 2009, November 13, 2009, December 14, 2009, January 14, 2010, February 12, 2010, March 11, 2010, April 8, 2010 and June 25, 2010 (the "Agreement").







Except as modified expressly below, all terms of the Agreement are hereby ratified and remain in full force and effect.  All capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them as set forth in the Agreement.







Affiliate and Programmer hereby agree to extend the Term of the Agreement as set forth in Paragraph 6.(a) through the earlier of the parties entering into a replacement agreement or November 2, 2010.







Very truly yours,







DIRECTV, Inc.







/s/ Toby Berlin







Toby Berlin


Vice President, Programming Acquisition












ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


 



	PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.	 	SPICE HOT ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	
By:  

	 
/s/ Roy J. Liebrecht

	 	  	
By:  

	 
/s/ Roy J. Liebrecht

	
 


	  	  	  	  	  
	
Title:  

	 
Roy J. Liebrecht

	 	  	
Title:  

	 
Roy J. Liebrecht

	
 


	  	 
Senior Vice President

	 	  	  	 
Senior Vice President

	
 


	  	 
Business and Legal Affairs

	 	  	  	Business and Legal Affairs
### §7156a. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–85, div. C, title XXXIV, §3403, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 2059

Section, Pub. L. 96–137, §2, Dec. 12, 1979, 93 Stat. 1061, related to assignment of naval officers to key management positions within Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves in Department of Energy and to position of Director.
AFS-12-203-E 

April 30, 2012 

 Exemption No. 8333D 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2003-15381 

E. Tazewell Ellett, Esq. 

Counsel for Zero-Gravity Corporation 

Hogan & Hartson, LLP 

555 Thirteenth Street, NW. 

Washington, DC 20004 

Dear Mr. Ellett: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8333, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated January 30, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Amerijet International, Inc. (Amerijet), for an extension of Exemption No. 8333, 

as amended. That exemption from §§ 91.303(f) and 91.307(c) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) allows Amerijet to operate a specially modified Boeing 727 aircraft 

(B-727) under 14 CFR part 121 on behalf of the Zero- Gravity Corporation in parabolic flight 

operations (1) when the flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles and (2) without each 

occupant of the aircraft wearing an approved parachute when the pilot executes an intentional 

maneuver that exceeds a nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Amerijet. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8333, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8333, as amended, to 

May 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

This exemption is not valid for operations outside of the United States. All conditions and 

limitations of Exemption No. 8333, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8333. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Deputy Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
#### § 1000.6 What is the nature of the IHBG program?

The IHBG program is formula driven whereby eligible recipients of funding receive an equitable share of appropriations made by the Congress, based upon formula components specified under subpart D of this part. IHBG recipients must have the administrative capacity to undertake the affordable housing activities proposed, including the systems of internal control necessary to administer these activities effectively without fraud, waste, or mismanagement.
EXHIBIT 32.1

INTERLINE BRANDS, INC.

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Interline Brands, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 25, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Grebe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ MICHAEL J. GREBE Michael J. Grebe Chairman of the Board,
Chief Executive Officer and PresidentFebruary 23, 2010


---



QuickLinks
#### § 134.13 Documentation of fees and expenses.

The application shall be accompanied by full documentation of the fees and expenses, including the cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test project or similar matter, for which an award is sought. A separate itemized statement shall be submitted for each professional firm or individual whose services are covered by the application, showing the hours spent in connection with the proceeding by each individual, a description of the specific services performed, the rate at which each fee has been computed, any expenses for which reimbursement is sought, the total amount claimed, and the total amount paid or payable by the applicant or by any other person or entity for the services provided. The adjudicative officer may require the applicant to provide vouchers, receipts, or other substantiation for any expenses claimed.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAnalysis of estimation algorithms for CDTI and CAS applicationsEstimation algorithms for Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) and Collision Avoidance System (CAS) applications were analyzed and/or developed. The algorithms are based on actual or projected operational and performance characteristics of an Enhanced TCAS II traffic sensor developed by Bendix and the Federal Aviation Administration. Three algorithm areas are examined and discussed. These are horizontal x and y, range and altitude estimation algorithms. Raw estimation errors are quantified using Monte Carlo simulations developed for each application; the raw errors are then used to infer impacts on the CDTI and CAS applications. Applications of smoothing algorithms to CDTI problems are also discussed briefly. Technical conclusions are summarized based on the analysis of simulation results.Document ID19850014076Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsGoka, T.*(Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc. Mountain View, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1985Subject CategoryAircraft InstrumentationReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:172444NASA-CR-172444Accession Number85N22387Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-35-13-03CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS1-16135Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19850014076.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
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

GERRY D WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

R METCALFE,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-03907 SI

ORDER OF DISMISSAL UPON

SETTLEMENT

The parties to the action, by their counsel, have advised the court that they have agreed

to a settlement. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. However, that

if any party hereto certifies to this court, with proof of service of a copy thereon on opposing counsel,

within ninety days from the date hereof, that settlement has not in fact occurred, the foregoing order

shall be vacated and this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar for further proceedings.

Dated: SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03907-SI Document 58 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 1
### §300hh–36. Leadership exchange pilot for public health and medical preparedness and response positions at the Department of Health and Human Services

#### (a) In general

The Secretary may, not later than 1 year after December 29, 2022, establish a voluntary program to provide additional training to individuals in eligible positions, as described in subsection (c), to support the continuous professional development of such individuals.

#### (b) Criteria

#### (1) Duration

The program under subsection (a) shall provide for fellowships, details, or other relevant placements with Federal agencies or departments, or State or local health departments, pursuant to the guidance issued under paragraph (2), for a maximum period of 2 years.

#### (2) Guidance

The Secretary shall issue guidance establishing criteria for identifying placements that demonstrate ongoing sufficient mastery of knowledge, skills, and abilities to satisfy the field experience criteria under the program established under subsection (a), including assignments and experiences that develop public health and medical preparedness and response expertise.

#### (c) Eligible position

For purposes of subsection (a), the term "eligible position" means any position at the Department of Health and Human Services at or above grade GS–13 of the General Schedule, or the equivalent, for which not less than 50 percent of the time of such position is spent on activities related to public health preparedness or response.

#### (d) Pilot period and final report

The pilot program authorized under this section shall not exceed 5 years. Not later than 90 days after the end of the program, the Secretary shall issue a report to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives that includes—

(1) the number of individuals who participated in such pilot, as applicable;

(2) a description of the professional growth experience in which individuals participated; and

(3) an assessment of the outcomes of such program, including a recommendation on whether such program should be continued.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVIII, §2826, as added Pub. L. 117–328, div. FF, title II, §2226, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5750.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The General Schedule, referred to in subsec. (c), is set out under section 5332 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.