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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,030
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,184
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,136
<INVENTORY>                                     30,717
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,888
<PP&E>                                          41,091
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,269
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,670
<BONDS>                                         12,191
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           523
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,983
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,372
<SALES>                                        154,434
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,434
<CGS>                                          106,847
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  106,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,089
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 980
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,382
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,282
<DISCONTINUED>                                  25,759
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,041
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .89


</TABLE>
### §673. Taxes under Agricultural Adjustment Act; laws unaffected

No processing taxes or compensating taxes shall be levied or collected under the Agricultural Adjustment Act [7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.], as amended. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, other than those enumerated in section 1 of Act of June 3, 1937, ch. 296, 50 Stat. 246. The provisions so enumerated shall apply in accordance with their terms (as amended by this Act) to the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, this Act, and other provisions of law to which they have been heretofore made applicable.

(June 3, 1937, ch. 296, §5, 50 Stat. 249.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Agricultural Adjustment Act, referred to in text, is title I of act May 12, 1933, ch. 25, 48 Stat. 31, which is classified generally to chapter 26 (§601 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 601 of this title and Tables.

This Act, referred to in text, is act June 3, 1937, ch. 296, 50 Stat. 246, known as the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

Section 1 of act June 3, 1937, ch. 296, 50 Stat. 246, referred to in text, amended sections 601, 602, 608a, 608b, 608c, 608d, 608e, 610, 612, 614, and 624 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          25,975
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,464
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,042
<INVENTORY>                                      3,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,683
<PP&E>                                          17,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,108
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           117
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,211
<SALES>                                         13,462
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,462
<CGS>                                            6,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,040
<INCOME-TAX>                                       417
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                623
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       623
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
### §6706. Institutes of Tropical Forestry

The Secretary is authorized and directed to establish an Institute of Tropical Forestry in Puerto Rico and an Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry (hereafter in this section referred to as the "Institutes"). The Institutes shall conduct research on forest management and natural resources that shall include—

(1) management and development of tropical forests;

(2) the relationship between climate change and tropical forests;

(3) threatened and endangered species;

(4) recreation and tourism;

(5) development of tropical forest resources on a sustained yield basis;

(6) techniques to monitor the health and productivity of tropical forests;

(7) tropical forest regeneration and restoration; and

(8) the effects of tropical deforestation on biodiversity, global climate, wildlife, soils, and water.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XXIV, §2407, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4060.)
#### STATE v. BALLARD

No. 488A97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 316

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals allowed 5 March 1998.
#### County of Monroe, Respondent, v City of Rochester et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[834 NYS2d 817]—

Appeals from a judgment (denominated judgment and order) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Craig J. Doran, A.J.), entered July 6, 2006 in a declaratory judgment action. The judgment declared, inter alia, that, in the event that plaintiff elects the sales tax intercept option codified in Tax Law § 1261 (f), the *1273net collections distributed to defendants pursuant to Tax Law former § 1262-g would be reduced by the amount of sales tax revenue deducted by the State to cover plaintiffs Medicaid contribution.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: The appealing municipalities and school districts appeal from a judgment declaring, inter alia, that, in the event that plaintiff elects the sales tax intercept option codified in Tax Law § 1261 *(f),*the net collections distributed to defendants pursuant to Tax Law former § 1262-g would be reduced by the amount of sales tax revenue deducted by the State to cover plaintiffs Medicaid contribution. Here, however, the sales tax intercept option will not be effective unless and until plaintiff elects to adopt it by resolution *(see*L 2005, ch 58, part C, § 2 [b] [i]). We therefore do not address the merits of the complaint because it seeks an advisory opinion, and we conclude that the judgment must be reversed and the complaint dismissed. “The courts of New York do not issue advisory opinions for the fundamental reason that in this State ‘[t]he giving of such opinions is not the exercise of the judicial function’ ” *(Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co.,*71 NY2d 349, 354 [1988]; *see Herzog Bros. Trucking v State Tax Commn.,*72 NY2d 720, 725 [1988]; *New York Pub. Interest Research Group v Carey,*42 NY2d 527, 531 [1977]; *Hollows at Loch Lea Assn., Inc. v Town of Clarence, 8*AD3d 994, 995 [2004]). The fact that the parties agree that we should address the merits of the appeal is of no moment, inasmuch as the parties cannot “by agreement confer subject matter jurisdiction upon [a] court where there is none” *(Cuomo,*71 NY2d at 351; *see generally Matter of Ballard v HSBC Bank USA,*6 NY3d 658, 663 [2006]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Green and Pine, JJ.
§ 37.640 Must I include a provision for audits of for-profit participants? If your TIA is an expenditure-based award, you must include in it an audit provision that addresses, for each for-profit participant: ( a ) Whether the for-profit participant must have periodic audits, in addition to any award-specific audits, as described in § 37.645. Note that the DCAA or the Office of the Inspector General, DoD (OIG, DoD), can provide advice on the types and scope of audits that may be needed in various circumstances.
( b ) Whether the DCAA or an independent public accountant (IPA) will perform required audits, as discussed in § 37.650.
( c ) How frequently any periodic audits are to be performed, addressed in § 37.655.
( d ) Other matters described in § 37.660, such as audit coverage, allowability of audit costs, auditing standards, and remedies for noncompliance.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1631
NANCY WRIGHT DORSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RUTHERFORD COUNTY; RUTHERFORD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; TONY HELTON; ROBERT LUCKADOO; DANNY DANIELS; FRANKLIN GOODE; ADEN LYNCH, intheir capacity as Rutherford County Commissioners; DANIEL J. GOOD, in his capacity as Sheriff of Rutherford County; RUTHERFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-96-94-4) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 20, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nancy Wright Dorsey, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Rainey, G. Michael Barnhill, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in her civil suit alleging employment discriminationand intentional deprivations of her constitutional rights in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (1994), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dorsey v. Rutherford County , No. CA-96-94-4 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 26, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in thematerials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
(February 15, 1961)

#### Helen Biffer et al., Appellants, v. Queen Curtain Shop, Incorporated et al., Respondents.

Motion by respondent Jacob Greenfield to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellants perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the April Term, beginning March 27, 1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellants’ brief must be served and filed on or before March 13, 1961. Beldock, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Fred C. Schulte, Chief Executive Officer of Elgin National Industries,
Inc., certify that:



| | 1. | This quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Elgin National Industries, Inc. 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Elgin National Industries, Inc.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    FRED C. SCHULTEFred C. SchulteChief Executive Officer




Date: November 14, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Andre Collin, Appellant.

Thomas R. Quinn, Esq., 85 Margaret St., Plattsburgh, N. Y., is hereby assigned as counsel.
### §418. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 418 was editorially reclassified as section 2207c of this title.
### §422a. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act May 29, 1928, ch. 892, §2, 45 Stat. 981, appropriated $50,000 for the purposes of former section 422 of this title, and was omitted from the Code as obsolete.
** 
Exhibit 31.1

 
Certification

 

I, William G. Rankin, certify that:
1.
I    have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of UQM Technologies, Inc.:2.
Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue    statement of 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.
The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries,    is made known to us by others within those entities, 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 annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure    controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based    on such evaluation; andc.
Disclosed    in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial    reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the    registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has    materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s    internal control over financial reporting; and5.
The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,    based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the    registrant’s auditors and the audit committee 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 internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to    adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report    financial information; andb.
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other    employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over    financial reporting.
Date:  May    25, 2005 
/s/ William    G. Rankin
William G. Rankin
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive    Officer
 **
**THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION**

**Washington, DC  20202**

MEMORANDUM

TO:Director, Program Management Services 

Business Operations 

Federal Student Aid

THROUGH:Chief Business Operations Officer    ◄▬▬

Business Operations

Federal Student Aid 

THROUGH:Chief Operating Officer   

Federal Student Aid 

FROM:The Secretary

SUBJECT:Delegation of Authority for Collection and Compromise of Claims against Individuals under the Federal Student Aid (FSA) Programs

I.DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. §3472, by 31 U.S.C. §3711, and by those provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 that authorize the collection and compromise, waiver, and write-off of claims of the Department against individuals arising from their obligation to repay current or defaulted student loans held by the Department, I hereby delegate to you, your successor in function, and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the following authorities:

A. The authority to certify to the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3716 and §3720A, and to any other official to whom certification may be required, that collection actions required by applicable statute, regulation, guidelines, or agreements have been taken with respect to these claims; and

Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

B. The authority to enforce, compromise, waive, and write off the collection of claims of the Department against individuals who have current student loans held by the Department or have defaulted on their obligation to repay loans or grant overpayments held by the Department, in accordance with the Federal Claims Collection Standards and Department regulations, except with respect to a claim that appears to be fraudulent, false, or misrepresented by a party with an interest in the claim.

Unless otherwise specified in future delegations of authority, amendments to the authorities delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II.RESERVATIONS

None.

III.REDELEGATION

A.The authority to certify compliance with collection requirements may not be redelegated.

B. The authority to enforce, compromise, waive, or write off claims against individuals for repayment of current or defaulted student loans and grant overpayments may be redelegated subject to financial limitations you may establish.  

IV.CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal Delegations Control Officer and supersedes delegations EA/EN/54 and EA/ENG/55.

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by you prior to the date of certification.  

______________/s/___________________

            Arne Duncan

OGC Clearance and Date:  /s/ David Berthiaume, 11/5/2009

Certified Date:  11/9/2009

Departmental Delegations Control Officer:  /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number:  EA/ENB/69
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00799-CV

William Wiese, Appellant

v.

Fadya AlBakry, Appellee 

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-04-007964, HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant and appellee, parents to J.W and C.W., were divorced in April 2005. On

September 19, 2014, the trial court signed a final order modifying the parent-child relationship,

lifting the original divorce decree’s restrictions on international travel with the children. Appellant,

who currently has the exclusive right to designate the children’s primary residence, filed a notice of

appeal. Appellant also filed an emergency motion to stay the September 19 order to the extent it

now permits international travel. Appellee filed a response to the emergency motion.

Based on the arguments presented by the parties and the record before us, we

conclude that a stay is warranted pursuant to rule 24.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

and section 109.002(c) of the Texas Family Code. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.2(a)(4); see also Tex.

Fam. Code § 109.002(c). Accordingly, in order to maintain the status quo of the parties during the
pendency of this appeal, we grant appellant’s emergency motion. We hereby stay the trial court’s

September 19 modification order to the extent it permits any international travel with the children,

pending final resolution of this appeal or further order of this Court.

It is so ordered March 20, 2015.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

2
# ORIGINAL
3Jn tbe Wntteb**~tates ~ourt**  

# of jfeberal**~latms** No. 18-8 300 (Filed June 29 , 2018) NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

### ************************ * EDWARD THOMAS KENNEDY, 

### * * Plaintiff, 

### * V. 

### * * THE UNITED STATES, 

### * * Def en dant. 

### * 

### * 

### ************************
ORDER 

# FILED JUN 2 9 2018 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

On Jun e 11 , 2018, the Clerk's office r ece ived two sets of docum ents from plaintiff, which were fil ed as complaints in two separate cases, numb er 18-826C a nd 18-830C

. Th e complaints a r e identic a l e xcept for small differences in the local governments eac h complaint identifies in its second paragrap h, slight differences in paragraph grouping, and an "act ion of trover" included in the companion case but not this one. For the reasons stated in the M emorandum Opinion and Order filed this day in 

### Kennedy v. United States, No. 18-826C , the Court has determined that this case fails to contain any claim s within our subject-matter jurisdiction. Our court does n ot have jurisdict ion over claims r egarding t h e actions of state or lo cal governments and officials, claims so unding in tort, crimes , or violations of federal law s that are not money-m a ndating. 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1491. The complaint is therefore 

### DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Rules of the U nited States Court of F ederal Claims. Plaintiff's motion to proceed 

### in fonna pauperis i s h ereby 

### GRANTED

. The Cle rk shall close the case. 

### IT IS SO ORDERED.

7012 3460 0001 7791 7876