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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,863
<SECURITIES>                                       854
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                       542
<INVENTORY>                                      2,978
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,594
<PP&E>                                           5,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,810
<BONDS>                                         14,913
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           150
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,018
<SALES>                                          9,352
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,005
<CGS>                                           16,714
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,523
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   513
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,911
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (42,896)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        87
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (42,983)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    (56)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (43,039)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.33)
        

</TABLE>
### §2671. Establishment of technical assistance program

#### (a) Definition

In this section, the term "tribally designated housing entity" has the meaning given the term in section 4103 of title 25.

#### (b) In general

The Secretary shall, in coordination with the Office of Tribal Relations established under section 6921 1 of this title, provide technical assistance to improve access by Tribal entities to rural development programs funded by the Department of Agriculture through available cooperative agreement authorities of the Secretary.

#### (c) Technical assistance

Technical assistance provided under subsection (b) shall address the unique challenge of Tribal governments, Tribal producers, Tribal businesses, Tribal business entities, and tribally designated housing entities in accessing Department of Agriculture-supported rural infrastructure, rural cooperative development, rural business and industry, rural housing, and other rural development activities.

(Pub. L. 115–334, title VI, §6302, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4748.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 6921 of this title, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original "section 309 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994", and was translated as meaning section 309 of Pub. L. 103–354, the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, to reflect the probable intent of Congress. The Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 is title II of Pub. L. 103–354, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3209.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, and not as part of title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972 which comprises this subchapter.

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

#### Definition of "Secretary"

"Secretary" means the Secretary of Agriculture, see section 2 of Pub. L. 115–334, set out as a note under section 9001 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
### §645a. Human trafficking assessment

Not later than 1 year after December 21, 2018, and annually thereafter, the Executive Associate Director of Homeland Security Investigations shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on human trafficking investigations undertaken by Homeland Security Investigations that includes—

(1) the number of confirmed human trafficking investigations by category, including labor trafficking, sex trafficking, and transnational and domestic human trafficking;

(2) the number of victims by category, including—

(A) whether the victim is a victim of sex trafficking or a victim of labor trafficking; and

(B) whether the victim is a minor or an adult; and

(3) an analysis of the data described in paragraphs (1) and (2) and other data available to Homeland Security Investigations that indicates any general human trafficking or investigatory trends.

(Pub. L. 115–393, title IV, §403, Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5275.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2017, and not as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which comprises this chapter.
### §§1381 to 1382. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1381, acts Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, title III, §381, 52 Stat. 66; Apr. 7, 1938, ch. 107, §12, 52 Stat. 204, related to cotton price adjustment payments with respect to 1937 cotton crop, and to transfer of pledged cotton of 1937 crop to Commodity Credit Corporation. Subsec. (c) of section 1381, which authorized sale of pledged cotton by Commodity Credit Corporation, was repealed by act July 3, 1948, ch. 827, title II, §202(b), 62 Stat. 1255.

Section 1381a, act June 16, 1938, ch. 464, title I, 52 Stat. 745, which was not a part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, related only to payments for 1937 crops.

Section 1382, act Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, title III, §382, 52 Stat. 67, required the Commodity Credit Corporation to provide for the extension, from July 31, 1938, to July 31, 1939, of 1937 cotton loan.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Provectus
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


Section
      906 Certifications








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002 (Public Law 107-204), the undersigned, H. Craig Dees, Ph.D., the Chief
      Executive Officer of Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Nevada corporation
      (the
      "Company"), and Peter R. Culpepper, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      hereby certify that:





1.
      The
      Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006,
      as
      filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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.





This
      Certification is signed on March 22, 2007.








/s/
      H.
      Craig Dees


H.
      Craig Dees, Ph.D.


Chief
      Executive
      Officer


Provectus
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc.





/s/
      Peter R. Culpepper


Peter
      R. Culpepper


Chief
      Financial
      Officer


Provectus
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Provectus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Provectus
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
### §496. Validity of other statutes dealing with same subject

This chapter shall not abrogate nor nullify any other statute, whether State or Federal, dealing with the same subjects as this chapter, but it is intended that all such statutes shall remain in full force and effect, except insofar only as they are inconsistent herewith or repugnant hereto.

(Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 309, §3, 44 Stat. 1355.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section constitutes part of section 3 of act Mar. 3, 1927. Remainder of section 3 is classified to sections 494 and 495 of this title.
### §672. Designation of critical infrastructure protection program

A critical infrastructure protection program may be designated as such by one of the following:

(1) The President.

(2) The Secretary of Homeland Security.

(Pub. L. 107–296, title XXII, §2223, formerly title II, §213, Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2152; renumbered title XXII, §2223, Pub. L. 115–278, §2(g)(2)(H), Nov. 16, 2018, 132 Stat. 4178.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 132 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 115–278.
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 2011 - 0593 Directorate ID : 2011 - SW - 002 - AD Helicopter Model: Schweizer Model 269A, A - 1, B, C, C - 1, and TH - 55 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 585 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent the strut and driveshaft separating from the helicopter and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs : Parts per Helicopter negligible Labor per Helicopter ( 0.5 work- hour x $ 8 5 /work - hour for the inspection) (1.5 work- hour x $85/work- hour for the modification) $ 43 $128 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 171 Total US Fleet Cost $ 100,035 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Stephen Kowalski
#### In the Matter of George Truckenbrodt, Petitioner, v. Alden C. Smith, as Mayor of the Village of Scarsdale, et al., Respondents.

'Proceeding under article 78 of the former Civil Practice Act: (1) to annul a determination of the respondent Board of Trustees of the Village of Searsdale, made December 27, 1962 after a hearing, dismissing petitioner from his position as a police officer of said village, effective December 4, 1962; and (2) to restore him to said position. Determination modified on the facts and in the exercise of discretion by reducing the punishment imposed from a dismissal to a suspension without pay for a period of six months commencing as of November 27, 1962. As so modified, determination confirmed, without costs. Petitioner was charged with and found guilty of violating certain departmental regulations in that on two occasions he used an official police patrol car outside the village limits for unauthorized purposes. In the light of the express assignment to petitioner of the patrol car in question, its use by him was warranted for police duty but not for unofficial purposes. Irrespective of whether he ever received a *908copy of the rules and regulations, the fact remains that he had been a policeman for about 14 years; that he knew of the existence of regulations; and that he knew or should have known that his use of the patrol car for personal purposes while on active official duty and his conduct in driving the ear not only away from his post but outside the village limits, was a violation of his duty and of the regulations. Under all the pertinent circumstances, however, including the nature of the offense and the petitioner’s prior service record, it is our opinion that a dismissal was excessive punishment and that the penalty of suspension hereby imposed is adequate (CPLR, § 7803, subd. 3; former Civ. Prae. Act, § 1296, subd. 5-a). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
Dolan Chemical Laboratory

4001 Bixby Road

Groveport, OH 43125

T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221

F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168

http://aepenv/labs

Water Analysis

Form REP-70

Rev. 0, 4/20

Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 1/18/2013

Sample Number: 130233-001 Date Collected: 01/16/2013 09:00 Date Received: 1/16/2013

Trip Blank 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 0.5 ng/L 0.50 0.20 TLT 01/17/2013 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 130233-002 Date Collected: 01/16/2013 09:00 Date Received: 1/16/2013

Field Blank 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg < 0.5 ng/L 0.50 0.20 TLT 01/17/2013 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 130233-003 Date Collected: 01/16/2013 09:00 Date Received: 1/16/2013

Plant Outfall #001 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 8.0 ng/L 2.0 0.80 TLT 01/17/2013 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 130233-004 Date Collected: 01/16/2013 09:00 Date Received: 1/16/2013

Bioreactor Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 7.1 ng/L 1.0 0.40 TLT 01/17/2013 EPA 1631E

Sample Number: 130233-005 Date Collected: 01/16/2013 09:00 Date Received: 1/16/2013

CPS Effluent 

Parameter Result Units RL MDL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method

Mercury, Hg 150 ng/L 20 8.0 TLT 01/17/2013 EPA 1631E

THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN 

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, 

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

Brian Snyder, Chemist II

Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224

Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 130233 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.24 General provisions. Payable claims must be for: ( a ) Personal property which is reasonable or useful under the circumstances of military service.
( b ) Loss, damage, destruction, confiscation, or forced abandonment which is incident to service.
( c ) Losses that are not collectible from any other source, including insurance and carriers.
( d ) Property that is owned by the claimants, or their immediate families, or borrowed for their use, or in which the claimants or their immediate families has an enforceable ownership interest.
( e ) Losses occurring without the claimants' negligence.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 83688, 83689, Nov. 22, 2016]
#### Penelope Cragg et al. *v.*Dunn Bus Corporation et al.

*Richard Gilardi,*for the appellees (defendants Dunn Bus Corporation and Stephen Marlin).

*Francis R. Sablone, Jr.,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

*Francis A. Smith, Jr.,*for the appellee (defendant Ansel Gayle).

*Francis R. Sablone, Jr.,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Argued December 3

decided December 3, 1974

The motion by the defendants Dunn Bus Corporation and Stephen Marlin to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford is granted.

The motion by the defendant Ansel Gayle to dismiss the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford is granted.

The motion by the defendant Ansel Gayle to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended appeal from the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford is granted.
#### Easton Farmers Grain Company, appellant, v. Fernandes Grain Company, appellee.

Gen. No. 7,811.

Action to recover losses in grain futures. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Prank W. Burton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 6, 1925.

W. St. J. Wines and Stevens *&*Herndon, for appellant.

Harlington Wood, Sampson & Giffin and Hugh J. Graham, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Shurtleff

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### OKLAHOMA GIN COMPANY *v.*STATE OF OKLAHOMA.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.

No. 32.

Argued January 23, 24, 1919;

restored to docket for reargument April 21, 1919;

submitted October 9, 1919;

order for oral argument entered October 20, 1919;

reargued December 17, 1919.

Decided March 22, 1920.

The provision of the Oklahoma law concerning penalties for disobedience of an order of the Corporation Commission fixing rates, *held*void, following *Oklahoma Operating Co.*v. *Love, ante,*331, as depriving a cotton ginning company of opportunity for judicial review. P. 340.

63 Oklahoma, 10, reversed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

*Mr. C. B. Ames*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. S. P.*Preding, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, with whom *Mr. Paul A. Walker*was on the brief, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Brandéis

delivered the opinion of the court.

The Corporation Commission of Oklahoma having found under § 8235 of the Revised Laws of 1910 that the Oklahoma Gin Company and four other concerns in the town of Chandler had combined and raised the charges for ginning cotton, on October 17,' 1913. fixed a schedule of rates lower than those then in force. The company thereafter charged rates in excess of those so fixed; and three separate complaints against it alleging violation of the order were filed with the Commission. Being summoned *340to show cause why it should not be punished for contempt the company admitted violation of the order, but alleged that it was void, among other reasons, because § 8235 was in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment. After a full hearing at which new evidence was introduced, the Commission affirmed, on October 10, 1914, the rates fixed; made a finding that the violation of the order was wilful; imposed on the company a fine of $500 and costs under each of the three separate complaints; directed refund of all amounts collected in excess of prescribed rates; and declared also: *“A*fine will be imposed for each day the order has been violated, and the matter as to the number of days and the amounts of fines to be imposed upon the defendant, other than those mentioned in the information, will be left open for adjustment upon taking of, evidence as to the number of dayte violated.” An appeal was taken by the company to the Supreme Court of the State, which affirmed the order and, thereafter, denied two petitions for rehearing. The case comes here on writ of error under § 237 of the Judicial Code as amended.

This case was argued and submitted with *Oklahoma Operating Co.*v. *Love,*decided this day, *ante,*331. For the reasons set forth in the opinion in that case the provision concerning penalties for disobedience to an order of the Commission was void because it deprived the company of the opportunity of a judicial review. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed. It is unnecessary to consider other contentions of plaintiff in error.

*Reversed.*
§ 761.13 Ships: Individual authorizations. ( a ) *Applications; form; filing.* Applications for authorization to navigate ships within the limits of defense areas shall be filed with the cognizant Entry Control Commander by letter or telegram including the following information and any additional information that may be relative to the proposed operation: ( 1 ) Name of ship.
( 2 ) Place of registry and registry number.
( 3 ) Name, nationality and address of operator.
( 4 ) Name, nationality and address of owner.
( 5 ) Gross tonnage of ship.
( 6 ) Nationality and numbers of officers and crew (include crewlist when practicable).
( 7 ) Number of passengers (include list when practicable).
( 8 ) Last port of call prior to entry into area for which clearance is requested.
( 9 ) Purpose of visit.
( 10 ) Proposed date of entry and estimated duration of stay.
( b ) *Processing.* Authorization for single entries or for multiple entries for a period not to exceed one year may be granted or denied by an Entry Control Commander. Authorizations for multiple entries for a period to exceed one year or for special group entries must be forwarded to the Chief of Naval Operations with appropriate comments and recommendations.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dion C. Abraham, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 413]—

Appeal from an order of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. *1209Dwyer, J.), entered March 2, 2006. The order determined that defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he is a level three risk under the Sex Offender Registration Act (Correction Law § 168 *et seq.).*County Court’s upward departure from the presumptive risk level in determining that defendant is a level three risk is supported by clear and convincing evidence *(see generally People v Seils,*28 AD3d 1158 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 709 [2006]; *People v Ventura,*24 AD3d 527 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 710 [2006]). “A court may make an upward departure from a presumptive risk level when, ‘after consideration of the indicated factors [,] . . . [the court determines that] there exists an aggravating or mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, not otherwise adequately taken into account by the [risk assessment] guidelines’ ” *(People v Cruz,*28 AD3d 819, 819 [2006]; *see Ventura,*24 AD3d 527 [2005]; *People v Mount,*17 AD3d 714, 715 [2005]). We agree with defendant that the second of the three factors upon which the court relied for the upward departure, i.e., the use of violence in the most recent offense, was already taken into account in the risk assessment instrument *(see People v Foley,*35 AD3d 1240 [2006]; *Mount,*17 AD3d at 715). Nevertheless, the remaining two factors upon which the court relied, i.e., defendant’s repeated advances toward women and defendant’s history of emotional problems, are sufficient aggravating factors that were not adequately taken into account in the risk assessment instrument *(see Ventura,*24 AD3d 527 [2005]; *People v Girup,*9 AD3d 913 [2004]). The evidence established that defendant entered the homes of two former girlfriends and stole their clothing after they made negative statements about him. In the most recent offense, defendant entered the home of a woman who had refused to talk to him and sexually abused her. The evidence also established that defendant had a history of emotional problems that was causally related to a risk of reoffense *(cf. People v Zehner,*24 AD3d 826, 827 [2005]). We therefore conclude that the court’s upward departure from the presumptive risk level was proper. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Centra and Peradotto, JJ.