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-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          11,149
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,399
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,762
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               108,009
<PP&E>                                         177,443
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,940
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 369,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          102,799
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           279
<OTHER-SE>                                     238,173
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   369,293
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               511,323
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  504,353
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,581
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,735
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,846
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,846
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lee E. Smith, Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

Appeal from a judgment convicting appellant of the crime of criminal negligence in the operation of a vehicle resulting in death. (Penal Law, § 1053-a.) There was an abundance of convincing evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that defendant’s automobile, operated by him at very high speed — in excess of 70 miles per hour according to two witnesses — on a busy street at a time in the early evening when stores and other business places were open, struck two adult pedestrians, inflicting massive injuries of almost unbelievable severity which caused the instant death of each. The evidence of guilt is comparable to, and perhaps stronger than that upon which we sustained the conviction in *People*v. *Mills*(10 A D 2d 395). There appears in the record no error of sufficient substance to warrant reversal; none, certainly, in the face of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt. We find, however, that neither the record nor defendant’s history warranted the sentence to imprisonment for not less than two nor more than five years. Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by reducing the term of the imprisonment thereby imposed to a term of not less than one year nor more than one year and two months and, as so modified, affirmed. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
Honorable Patricia Schroeder
          President
          Association of American Publishers, Inc. 
          50 F Street, NW, Fourth Floor
          Washington, DC 20001

Dear Ms. Schroeder:

Thank you for your letter concerning the "Analysis of Reading            Assessment Instruments for K-3" released through the Institute            for the Development of Educational Achievement at the University of            Oregon. I assure you that the findings of this study do not in any way            represent an "approved list" of assessments for use under            the Reading First program. Rather, this analysis examines the technical            qualities of a group of K-3 assessments, not their suitability for use            in connection with Reading First.

The use of instructional assessments is a key component of the Reading            First program. It is through the use of ongoing assessments with proven            validity and reliability that classroom teachers can measure where students            are and monitor their progress. Reading First requires the administration            of screening, diagnostic and classroom-based instructional reading assessments            so that teachers can effectively screen, identify and overcome reading            barriers facing their students.

In their applications for Reading First grants, States must demonstrate            how they will evaluate the appropriateness, validity and reliability,            and alignment of assessments that will be used as part of the State's            Reading First program. Reference to the University of Oregon analysis            is not sufficient information to meet the review standard for this criterion.            In fact, the expert review panel has found proposals that merely assert            the intention to select assessments from the analysis not to meet the            required standard. Conversely, proposals have been found to meet or            exceed the required standard without any reference to this analysis.

As I indicated in my previous letter to you, there is no approved list            of instructional materials for use in connection with the Reading First            program, and I assure you that this includes instructional assessments.            The Department will further clarify this point in a notice on the Reading            First website (www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html).            Please feel free to contact the Reading First program office at (202)            401-0113 or Reading.First@ed.gov            should you require any additional information.

I appreciate your continued interest in the Reading First program,            and your ongoing support for the implementation of the No Child Left            Behind Act.

Sincerely,

/s/

Rod Paige

|Last Modified: 09/15/2004
|-------------------------
232.611 Contract clause. ( a ) The Principal Director, Defense Pricing, Contracting, and Acquisition Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), may exempt the contracts in FAR 32.611(a)(2) through (5) and other contracts, in exceptional circumstances, from the administrative interest charges required by this subpart. ( 7 ) Other exceptions are— ( A ) Contracts for instructions of military or ROTC personnel at civilian schools, colleges, and universities;
( B ) Basic agreements with telephone companies for communications services and facilities, and purchases under such agreements; and
( C ) Transportation contracts with common carriers for common carrier services.
[70 FR 75413, Dec. 20, 2005. Redesignated and amended at 80 FR 58633, Sept. 30, 2015; 88 FR 73237, Oct. 25, 2023; 89 FR 60832, July 29, 2024]
Protecting StudentsRace, Color, or National Origin DiscriminationIssues

*Retaliation is prohibited under each of the civil rights laws that OCR enforces, including Title VI. Retaliatory acts against any individual who exercises his or her rights under Title VI are considered to be discrimination and are unlawful. Recipients of federal funds are prohibited from intimidating, threatening, coercing, or discriminating against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by the statutes that OCR enforces*.  

----

 

              - Policy Guidance
              - Case Resolutions
              - Publications

### Policy Guidance

 

Please see our Reading Room for a full list of guidance documents on issues related to  Race, Color, or National Origin Discrimination.

### Case Resolutions

- View Race, Color, and National Origin Discrimination Case Resolutions

To access resolution agreements and letters created on or after October 1, 2013 click 	**here**or enter criteria in the search box below:          Keyword(s): Publications
- Sexual Harassment: Sexual Violence    PDF  (4MB)

  Last Modified: 01/13/2023
p.1 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

147) ll-E-107 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:08 AM Sheet 147 of 264 
P.2 

From: "Goldberg, Bob" <BG0L461@ECY.WA.G0V> 

To: 'MADELEINE STRUM' <STRUM.MADELEINE@epamail.epa.gov... 

Date: 11/5/97 7:30pm 

Subject: Lasco resin 

Just finished talking with Gordon Lowe of Lasco, and he confirmed that 

the Lasco plant in Yelm, WA is currently using a 30% styrene resin from 

Gwil in production, as well as a 30% styrene gel coat. They're shooting 

for lower styrene levels in the gel coat (28%). Good stuff. 

Bob Goldberg 

Washington State Department of Ecology 

Southwest Regional Office 

Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Program 

P.O. Box 47775 

Olympia, WA 98504-7775 

phone: (360) 407-6350 

fax: (360) 407-6305 

e-mail: bgol461@ecy.wa.gov 

URL: www.wa.gov/ecology/hwtr
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mack Jones, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The relief sought is not available to the defendant in this *coram nobis*proceeding. We call to the attention of the District Attorney that the Trial Judge wrote a memorandum and a copy of the same was not attached to his brief as an appendix. (Appeal from order of Erie County Court, denying, without a hearing, motion to vacate a judgment of conviction for grand larceny, second degree, rendered May 23, 1951.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
### Uranium resource assessment by the Geological Survey; methodology and plan to update the national resource base

By: Warren Irvin FinchRichard B. McCammon

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir994

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Opinion filed November 17 , 2016



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _ ____ No. 11

- 1 6

- 00 318

- CV

__________ IN THE INTEREST OF T.N.S., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 326 th District Court

Taylor County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. 8506

- CX

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Kevin Earl Scott has filed a pro se notice of appeal in which he attempt s to appeal from the trial court’s October 1 8 , 201 6 decision to deny Scott’s request for

court

- appointed counsel

. We notified Scott by letter dated October 28 , 201 6 , that it did not appear to this court that a final
, appealable order had been entered by the trial court, and we requested that Scott file a response show ing grounds to continue this appeal. Scott filed a response ; h owever, he has not shown grounds upon which this appeal may continue

. Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835, 840

– 41 (Tex.2

2007); Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191 , 195 (Tex. 2001). The trial court’s letter ruling relates only to the appointment of counsel and is not a final, appealable order because it does not dispose of all parties and all claims. Additionally, the letter ruling does not appear on its face to be final. See McNally v.
Guevara , 52 S.W.3d 195 , 196 (Tex. 2001); Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 200

. Because

no final
, appealable order has been entered in this ca u se, w e lack jurisdiction and
dismiss this appeal

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3. Accordingly, t h e appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

November 17 , 2016 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson , J. , and Bailey, J.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

________________________________________

# FORM 10-Q/A No. 1

Pursuant to Section 13
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Amendment No. 1 to
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 27, 2005

Commission File Number:
000-04892

CAL-MAINE FOODS, INC.
Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

|Delaware                        | 64-0500378                       
|------------------------------- | ---------------------------------
|(State or other jurisdiction of | (IRS Employer Identification No.)
|incorporation or organization)  |                                  

|3320 Woodrow Wilson Avenue, Jackson, Mississippi | 39209     
|------------------------------------------------ | ----------
|(Address of principal executive offices)         | (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number,
including area code:  (601) 948-6813

The
undersigned registrant hereby amends its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended August 27, 2005, solely for the purpose of adding the following to the facing page:

Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act).

Yes __ No X.

Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this amendment to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

|                       |                           
|---------------------- | --------------------------
|Date: October 14, 2005 | By: /s/ Charles F. Collins
|                       | Charles F. Collins        
|                       | Vice President/Controller
222.406-1 Policy. ( a ) *General.* The program shall also include— ( i ) Training appropriate contract administration, labor relations, inspection, and other labor standards enforcement personnel in their responsibilities; and ( ii ) Periodic review of field enforcement activities to ensure compliance with applicable regulations and instructions. (b) *Preconstruction letters and conferences.* (1) Promptly after award of the contract, the contracting officer shall provide a preconstruction letter to the prime contractor. This letter should accomplish the following, as appropriate— ( A ) Indicate that the labor standards requirements contained in the contract are based on the following statutes and regulations— ( 1 ) Construction Wage Rate Requirements statute. ( 2 ) Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards statute; ( 3 ) Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act; ( 4 ) Parts 3 and 5 of the Secretary of Labor's Regulations (parts 3 and 5, subtitle A, title 29, CFR); and ( 5 ) Executive Order 11246 (Equal Employment Opportunity); ( B ) Call attention to the labor standards requirements in the contract which relate to— ( 1 ) Employment of foremen, laborers, mechanics, and others; ( 2 ) Wages and fringe benefits payments, payrolls, and statements; ( 3 ) Differentiation between subcontractors and suppliers; ( 4 ) Additional classifications; ( 5 ) Benefits to be realized by contractors and subcontractors in keeping complete work records; ( 6 ) Penalties and sanctions for violations of the labor standards provisions; and ( 7 ) The applicable provisions of FAR 22.403; and ( C ) Ensure that the contractor sends a copy of the preconstruction letter to each subcontractor. (2) Before construction begins, the contracting officer shall confer with the prime contractor and any subcontractor designated by the prime to emphasize their labor standards obligations under the contract when— ( A ) The prime contractor has not performed previous Government contracts; ( B ) The prime contractor experienced difficulty in complying with labor standards requirements on previous contracts; or ( C ) It is necessary to determine whether the contractor and its subcontractors intend to pay any required fringe benefits in the manner specified in the wage determination or to elect a different method of payment. If the latter, inform the contractor of the requirements of FAR 22.406-2. [56 FR 36358, July 31, 1991, as amended at 77 FR 35880, June 15, 2012]
Exhibit 23.1














CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











The Board of Directors


PhotoMedex, Inc. and Subsidiaries:





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 23, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K, in the following documents: in the registration statement (No. 333-164089) on Form S-1; in the registration statements (Nos. 333-58450, 333-72580, 333-91926, 333-106605, 333-120921 (and amendment 1), 333-125980, 333-132654 and 333-139031) on Form S-3; in the registration statements (Nos. 333-100609 and 333-121864) on Form S-4; and in the registration statements (Nos. 333-30298, 333-114181, 333-124034, 333-132655, 333-132656, 333-146558, and 333-159224) on Form S-8 of PhotoMedex, Inc.








Edison, New Jersey


March 23, 2010
#### In the Matter of the Claims of Harry Strley et al., Respondents. Fairbanks Company, Appellant.

Application for assignment of counsel for elaimants-respondents granted and Donald L. Slater, Esq., of Cortland, New York, is hereby appointed to represent the elaimants-respondents on the appeal herein.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19

              SECOND AMENDMENT TO REVOLVING LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
         AMSOUTH BANK AND SURGICAL LASER TECHNOLOGIES DATED MAY 31, 2000

RESOLVED, that, effective June 26, 2002, AmSouth Bank and Surgical Laser
Technologies hereby declare and certify by the signatures indicated below, that
Article I, Section 1.01, more specifically the contents represented in this
section as found on page 4 of the Loan Agreement dated May 31, 2000 regarding
the definition of "Termination Date" should be amended and restated as follows:

                "Termination Date" means the 31day of May, 2004.

Accepted and Agreed upon this 27 day of June, 2002.

AmSouth Bank                            Surgical Laser Technologies Inc.

By: /s/ Rhett D. Jordan                 By: /s/ Michael R. Stewart
    -------------------------               -------------------------------
        Rhett D. Jordan                         Michael R. Stewart
        Its: Vice President                     Its: President and
                                                Chief Executive Officer

                                        By: /s/ Davis Woodward
                                            -------------------------------
                                                Davis Woodward
                                                Its: Vice President of Finance
                                                and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Jesse L. Hughes, Jr., Appellant, v. Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respon*1028dent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from order of Cayuga Special Term denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus, without a hearing.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and McClusky, JJ.
6956 E. Broad Street Suite 239 Columbus, Ohio 43213

April 8, 2015 U
. S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations , M- 30 West Building- Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue , SE Washington, D
. 

### C. 20590 Telephone : Cell Phone : Fax: 614-864-9550 614-477-7679 614-864-7430

Subject: REQUEST FOR RENEWAL Of FAA EXEMPTION 9917-B REGULATORY DOCUME NT NO. F AA-2009-0373 , ALLOWING SINGLE PILOT OPERATION OF A CESSNA CITATION. Sirs: Through this letter we request the FAA renew Exemption 9917-B. This would allow Cessna Citations to fly Single Pilot with some limitations
. The terms and conditions of the original petition remain the same. Any issues regarding public safety and public interest remain the same . Thank you for your support in this matter. Ifthere arc any questions please do not hesitate to call.

Mark McDevitt President, V UE Inc. 

### "Global Flight Training"
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         163,236
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 232,351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,236
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,115
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   232,351
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,846,421
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,793,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

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 DNB Financial Corporation (the "Registrant") on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gerald F. Sopp, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ GERALD F. SOPP Gerald F. Sopp Chief Financial OfficerMarch 26, 2010


---



QuickLinks