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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                         6,276
<SECURITIES>                                   61,036
<RECEIVABLES>                                  25,350
<ALLOWANCES>                                   500
<INVENTORY>                                    26,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,379
<PP&E>                                         107,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                 76,964
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,524
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,154
<BONDS>                                        635
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          1,313
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     130,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,524
<SALES>                                        116,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,372
<CGS>                                          99,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  99,497
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               10,911
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9,020
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,850
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            6,170
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,170
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.06
        


</TABLE>
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statement of Independent Bankshares, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No.
33-83112 and 333-07567) of our report dated January 29, 1999, on
our audits of the consolidated financial statements of
Independent Bankshares, Inc. as of December 31, 1998 and 1997,
and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
1998, which report is incorporated by reference in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Fort Worth, Texas
March 30, 1999
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

Teachers
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF BRUNO'S, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 30, 1999, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                          96,028
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,016
<ALLOWANCES>                                       517
<INVENTORY>                                    171,831
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               301,243
<PP&E>                                         584,208
<DEPRECIATION>                                 330,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 570,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          132,528
<BONDS>                                        400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           255
<OTHER-SE>                                    (564,814)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   570,701
<SALES>                                      1,213,520
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,213,520
<CGS>                                          932,978
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  932,978
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               315,886
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (37,471)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (10,068)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (27,403)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (27,403)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.07)


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Intermediate Accounting of Security Trust Company of Rochester, as Trustee of an Express Trust Executed by Charles M. Thoms and Others, Respondent. Janet Ingersoll, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) (And Seven Other Actions.)

Orders unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Memorandum: Special Term achieved the correct result but we do not adopt its language or reasoning. The order of reference herein was not a reference to hear and determine but rather one to hear and report. The court retained its supervisory control over the Referee and the proceedings. The record warranted a finding of vexatious delay, obstruction and frustration upon the part of the objector. (Appeal by Janet T. Ingersoll from order of Monroe Special Term dismissing the respondent’s objections to accounts of the trustees; also, appeal from order denying motion to vacate above order.) Present- — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman and McClusky, J J.
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2008-CR-1308 and 2008-CR-8981, styled State v.Gary Avant,

pending in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-09-00300-CR

IN RE Gary AVANT

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 3, 2009

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On May 21, 2009, relator Gary Avant filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining of

the trial court’s failure to rule on his pro se pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus. However,

counsel has been appointed to represent relator in the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court

for which he is currently confined. A criminal defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation. See

Robinson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481,

498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). A trial court has no legal duty to rule on pro se motions or petitions

filed with regard to a criminal proceeding in which the defendant is represented by counsel. See
04-09-00300-CR

-2-

Robinson, 240 S.W.3d at 922. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining

to rule on relator’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus that relates directly to his confinement

based on the criminal proceeding pending in the trial court. Therefore, we conclude that relator has

not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition is denied. TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.8(a). 

Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

No leave is required to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.

Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Reported Emissions and Product Content

Table 1. Reported Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from U.S. Operations

Company Second 

Year 

Reductions

Chemical 

Category

Emissions Product Content

Releases to all 

media from FP 

and Telomer 

Manufacturing

(kg)

kg of 

release / 

kg of 

product 

produced

Dispersions

(ppm wetweight basis)

Other 

Fluoropolymers

(ppm dry-weight 

basis)

Telomers 

(ppm dryweight basis, 

unless stated 

otherwise)

Dyneon/3M 2012

PFOA, PFOA 

salts and 

Higher 

Homologues

0 0 0 0 No Telomer 

Production

Precursors 0
Table 2. Reported Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from Non U.S. Operations

Company Second 

Year 

Reductions

Chemical 

Category

Emissions Product Content

Releases to all 

media from FP 

and Telomer 

Manufacturing 

(kg)

kg of 

release / 

kg of 

product 

produced

Dispersions

(ppm wetweight basis)

Other 

Fluoropolymers

(ppm dry-weight 

basis)

Telomers 

(ppm dryweight basis, 

unless stated 

otherwise)

Dyneon/3M 2012

PFOA, PFOA 

salts and 

Higher 

Homologues

0 0 0 0 No Telomer 

Production

Precursors 0
Reported Percent Reductions in Emissions and Product Content

Table 3. Reported Percent Reductions in Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from

U.S. Operations

Company

Second 

Year 

Reductions

Chemical 

Category

% Reduction in Emissions % Reduction in Product Content

% Reductions in total 

quantity of chemical(s) 

released from baseline 

year

Fluoropolymer 

Dispersions

Other 

Fluoropolymers

Telomer based 

products

Dyneon/3M 2012

PFOA, 

PFOA salts 

and Higher 

Homologues

100% 100% Not Applicable No Telomer 

Production

Precursors No Precursor Production
Table 4. Reported Percent Reductions in Emissions and Product Content of PFOA, Precursors, and Higher Homologues from 

Non U.S. Operations

Company

Second 

Year 

Reductions

Chemical 

Category

% Reduction in Emissions % Reduction in Product Content

% Reductions in total 

quantity of chemical(s) 

released from baseline 

year

Fluoropolymer 

Dispersions

Other 

Fluoropolymers

Telomer based 

products

Dyneon/3M 2012

PFOA, 

PFOA salts 

and Higher 

Homologues

100% 100% 100% No Telomer 

Production

Precursors No Precursor Production
3M Fluoropolymers Accomplishments Table

Company Facilities Reductions

Emissions Product Content

United States 100% 100%

Non-United States 100% 100%

Global 100% 100%

Please enter a % number for each of the fields in the table below.

When necessary, please combine PFOA, precursors, and higher homologues into one PFOA-equivalent number.

In addition, please combine U.S. and non-U.S. reductions into a global reduction, if possible.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                         620,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,160,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,106,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,954,000
<PP&E>                                       3,997,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,098,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,969,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,634,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,583,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,104,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,264,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,969,000
<SALES>                                     10,510,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,510,000
<CGS>                                        5,715,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,350,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (39,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,825,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   936,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,761,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,761,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)

        

</TABLE>
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30376

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HIKING DUPRE

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:04-CR-28

Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hiking Dupre, proceeding pro se, appeals his 2004 convictions and

sentences for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base within 1000 feet

of a public playground, carrying and using a firearm in relation to a drug

trafficking offense, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. 

Dupre argues that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the

introduction of unfairly prejudicial evidence, such as a black shirt and a ski

mask, seized from a vehicle at the time of his arrest. This ski mask and shirt

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 05-30376

2

were briefly discussed at trial but were never introduced as actual exhibits or

shown to the jury. The district court correctly found that the defense opened the

door to a discussion of such evidence by arguing that the police had found the

gun and drugs in a nearby vehicle rather than on Dupre’s person. The defense

opened the door further by questioning a police officer about apparent

discrepancies between his testimony and a property receiptthatlisted the items

seized. Finally, we note that this property receipt, which listed the ski mask and

shirt, was introduced as an exhibit by the defense rather than the Government.

Given these facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing brief

mention of these items. See United States v. Maldonado, 472 F.3d 388, 398 (5th

Cir. 2006); United States v. Wilson, 355 F.3d 358, 361 (5th Cir. 2003).

Dupre also argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced under 21

U.S.C. § 841; he asserts that the Government failed to comply with 21 U.S.C.

§ 851 by not serving either himself or defense counsel with notice that the

Government would seek to enhance his sentence on the basis of his prior

convictions. Although a § 841 enhancement on the basis of prior convictions was

extensively discussed, the statutory sentencing ranges discussed at sentencing

are the penalties applicable to his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 860 (possession

with intent to distribute cocaine base within 1000 feet of a public playground).

See United States v. Chandler, 125 F.3d 892, 896 (5th Cir. 1997). Because

Dupre’s sentence was not enhanced under § 841 on the basis of his prior

convictions, any non-compliance with § 851 is harmless. See FED. R. CRIM.

P. 52(a).

AFFIRMED.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Roger Lubesky

*Ernest J. Diette, Jr.,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

No appearance for the appellant (defendant).

Argued October 1

decided October 2, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Hard Drive Productions, Inc.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−01532

Honorable Edmond E. Chang

Does 1−54, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, October 31, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Edmond E. Chang: The Court is still considering

Plaintiff's motion to compel [13] and the respective Doe's motions to quash [12, 18].

Status hearing of 11/01/12 is reset to 11/19/12 at 9:30 a.m. Mailed notice(slb, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-01532 Document #: 36 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:239
#### 1352.000 Scope of part.

This part sets forth solicitation provisions and contract clauses, in addition to those prescribed in FAR Part 52, for use in DOC acquisitions.
Production Data

 Potline 3 (Roof and A398 Dry Alumina Scrubber) The average rate of aluminum production during testing of a potline: Downcomer (represents 25% of Potline 3 ) R - 1 14:03 - 14:15 4/16 - 17/13 M - 5/29 and 315

– 2.25 ton aluminum /hr R - 2 15:08 - 15:19 4/17 - 18/13 M - 5/29 and 315

– 2.29 ton aluminum /hr R - 3 16:15 - 16:25 4/18 - 19/13 M - 5/29 and 315

– 2.31 ton aluminum /hr 32 out of 32 pots were operating in this test section A 398 - 163 Sou th (represents 50% of Potline 3) R - 1 10:26 - 14:36 4/17/13 M - 5/29 and 315

– 4.49 ton aluminum /hr R - 2 10:37 - 15:32 4/18/13 M - 5/29 and 315

– 4.48 ton aluminum /hr R - 3 10:41 - 15:34 4/18/13 M - 5/29 and 315

– 4.48 ton aluminum/hr 63 out of 64 pots were operating in test section Aluminum pr oduction capacity (all Potline 3 128 pots opera ting): Potline #3 aluminum product ion capacity = 9.3 ton aluminum/hr The installation date and the date of the most recent startup Potline 3 installed 1979 Shutdown began June 1986, pot line not restarted until July 1987 – planned event

 Anode Bake Fu rnace (A446 Dry Alumina Scrubber) The average rate of green anodes processes during the emission testing of the paste plant: R - 1 09:30 - 13:40 4/15/13 M - 5/29 – 17.06 ton green anode/hr R - 2 09:30 - 13:40 4/15/13 M - 5/29 – 17.06 ton green anode/hr R - 3 08:4 7 - 12:58 4/23/13 M - 5/29 – 15.08 ton green anode/hr

 Anode Paste Plant (Procedair Dry Coke Scrubber) The average rate of green anodes processes during the emission testing of the paste plant : R - 1 10:38 - 14:51 4/19/13 M - 5/29 – 23.46 ton green anode/hr R - 2 08 :30 - 12:40 4/22/13 M - 5/29 – 22.70 ton green anode/hr R - 3 12:57 - 17:05 4/22/13 M - 5/29 – 22.92 ton green anode/hr
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William Wheeler, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing, granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers and on a typed brief. Appellant is directed to file six copies of his typed brief and to serve one copy of his typed brief on the District Attorney. Appellant’s time to perfect the appeal enlarged to the March Term, commencing February 27, 1961. Appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. Motion by appellant for assignment of counsel granted. Robert Port, Esq., of 1396 Fulton St., Brooklyn, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
1313.305-1 General. ( a ) *Third-party drafts.* Third-party drafts are not authorized for use by Department of Commerce agencies.
( b ) *Imprest Funds.* The *Imprest Fund Policy Directive,* issued November 9, 1999, by the Department of Treasury, required that all Federal agencies eliminate agency use of imprest funds by October 1, 2001, except where provided under the *Imprest Fund Policy Directive.* Requests for exceptions to the requirements of the Imprest Fund Policy Directive should be addressed to DOC's Director of Financial Management. In the case of an approved exception, DOC's procedures for using imprest funds can be found in the Cash Management Policies and Procedures Handbook, available at the Department of Commerce, Office of Financial Management Web site. A copy of all approved exceptions shall be submitted to the Senior Bureau Procurement Official.
This order and judgment is not binding precede nt, except under the doctrines

of law of the case, res judicata and collateral est oppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nev ertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condition s of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 7/30/96 TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID ROBIN WHITMORE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. RON CHAMPION,

Respondent-Appellee. No. 96-6051 (W.D. Oklahoma) (D.C. No. CIV-95-134-R)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument.-2-

Petitioner David Robin Whitmore proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis appeals from an order of the district court dismiss ing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. According to Whitmore, the district court erred in reaching the following conclusions: (1) Wh itmore’s guilty plea was voluntary; and (2) Whitmore’s guilty plea was not the result of ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding that Whitmore is no t entitled to a certificate of appealability, we dismiss the appeal. This court is required to examine the appeal of a d enial of a writ of habeas corpus to determine whether the petitioner has made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (the “Act’), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This court has held that the standard for granting a certificate o f appealability under the Act is the standard set out by the Supreme Court in Barefoot v. Estelle , 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983). Under this standard, a certificate of appealability will issue only where the petitioner has demonstrated the issues ra ised by the petition are debatable among jurists of reason, a court could re solve the issues differently, or the questions presented are deserving of further pr oceedings. Id. We have reviewed the magistrate’s report and recomm endation, the district court’s order, Whitmore’s brief and application fora certificate of appealability, and the entire record before us on appeal. We conc lude that Whitmore has failed-3-

to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a c onstitutional right” for the reasons set forth in the magistrate’s report and re commendation and the district court’s order. Accordingly, we DENY Whitmore’s application for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge