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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         591,854
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,235,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                    52,921
<INVENTORY>                                  1,431,102
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,642,905
<PP&E>                                       5,458,100
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,305,266
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,409,124
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,498,851
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       128,344
<OTHER-SE>                                     681,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,409,124
<SALES>                                      8,698,794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,698,794
<CGS>                                        5,229,422
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,356,502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,916,632
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             287,677
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,630,852)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    62,339
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,693,191)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,693,191)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.0

# Written Statement of
the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Cal-Maine
Foods Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on their knowledge, that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended February 28, 2004 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ Fred R. Adams, Jr.
Fred R. Adams, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Bobby J. Raines Bobby
J. Raines Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary

Date: April 9, 2004
Publications

Table 15. Chemical compounds or classes of compounds in sediment showing significant positive associations by logistic regression (p < 0.05) with site-specific prevalences of selected categories of idiopathic liver lesions in English sole, while adjusting for mean age and gender ratio (female:male). Table indicates direction of correlation, p value, and % of total variance in lesion prevalence explained by risk factor (reduction in scaled deviance).

Abbreviations: FCA = foci of cellular alteration; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation; Prolif = proliferative lesions; n=number of sites; ns=not significant; LND=lesion not detected. Abbreviations for chemical compounds are defined in Table 3.

Abbreviations: FCA = foci of cellular alteration; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation; Prolif = proliferative lesions; n=number of sites; ns=not significant; LND=lesion not detected. Abbreviations for chemical compounds are defined in Table 3.

Abbreviations: FCA = foci of cellular alteration; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation; Prolif = proliferative lesions; n=number of sites; ns=not significant; LND=lesion not detected. Abbreviations for chemical compounds are defined in Table 3.
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/PublicationsFigure A-6. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver (A) and kidney (B) lesions in spotted sand bass at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). Figure A-7. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver (A) and kidney (B) lesions in spotted turbot at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). The reference site is shown at the far right of the graph, indicated by enclosed brackets { }. Figure A-8. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver (A) and kidney (B) lesions in diamond turbot at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). Figure A-9. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver (A) and kidney (B) lesions in California tonguefish at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). The reference site is shown at the far right of the graph, indicated by enclosed brackets { }. Figure A-10. Prevalences of toxicopathic liver (A) and kidney (B) lesions in California halibut at sites sampled in the National Benthic Surveillance Project (1984-88). FCA = foci of cellular alteration; Prolif = nonneoplastic proliferative lesions; SDN = specific degenerative/necrotic lesions; HydVac = hydropic vacuolation. The number of fish examined per site is given below each site abbreviation (see Table 1 for site definitions). The reference site is shown at the far right of the graph, indicated by enclosed brackets { }.
1

From: Brachtl, Megan

Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 4:20 PM

To: Szabo, Aaron

Cc: Lorang, Phil; Bruce Schillo

Subject: EPA responses to interagency comments on SSM SIP Call FRM draft package RIN 2060‐AR68  

Hello Aaron – Attached please find EPA’s responses to interagency comments on the SSM SIP Call draft final rulemaking.

The redline strike‐out version reflects the edits made in response to comments. The accompanying response document

clarifies where the responsive edits to each comment are located, and/or indicates which comments EPA did not

accept/make edits in response to.

Thank you for your help in managing the interagency review process for this package.

Best regards,

Megan

Megan V. Brachtl, Group Leader

State and Local Programs Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(919) 541‐2648

brachtl.megan@epa.gov
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; WELLS

FARGO INSURANCE SERVICES USA,

INC.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

ABD INSURANCE & FINANCIAL

SERVICES, INC., FKA Insurance

Leadership Network, Inc.; KURT DE

GROSZ; BRIAN HETHERINGTON,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-15625

D.C. No. 4:12-cv-03856-PJH

Northern District of California, 

Oakland

ORDER

Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.

The full court has been advised of the Petition for Rehearing En Banc and no

judge of the court has requested a vote on the Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Fed.

R. App. P. 35. Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also DENIED.

The memorandum disposition filed on December 20, 2013, is AMENDED

as follows.

The second to last paragraph states:

We also note that although the district court did not abuse its

discretion by omitting consideration of the false affiliation claim

FILED

FEB 06 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
because it was not properly raised below, we see no reason why that

claim cannot be raised on remand and therefore hold that Wells Fargo

can address any false affiliation claims it has in further proceedings

consistent with this memorandum disposition. 

The second to last paragraph is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the

following language:

We also note that although the district court did not abuse its

discretion by omitting consideration of the false affiliation claim

because it was not properly raised below, we see no reason why that

claim cannot be raised on remand and therefore hold that Wells Fargo

can address any false affiliation claims it has in further proceedings

consistent with this memorandum disposition. We further note that

the district court determined that Wells Fargo failed to establish that it

would likely suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction did

not issue. In light of our recent decision in Herb Reed Enterprises,

LLC v. Florida Entertainment Management, Inc., 736 F.3d 1239 (9th

Cir. 2013), we decline to address this issue. Because neither the

district court nor the parties had the benefit of Reed, the district court

should revisit the issue of irreparable harm on remand. See id. at 1250

("Evidence of loss of control over business reputation and damage to

goodwill could constitute irreparable harm.").

No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be

accepted. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.
#### 2009.404 Consolidated list of parties excluded from Federal procurement or non-procurement programs.

The contracting officer responsible for the contract affected by the debarment or suspension shall perform the actions required by FAR 9.404(c) (1) through (6).
222.302 Liquidated damages and overtime pay. Upon receipt of notification of Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards violations, the contracting officer shall— ( 1 ) Immediately withhold such funds as are available; ( 2 ) Give the contractor written notification of the withholding and a statement of the basis for the liquidated damages assessment. The written notification shall also inform the contractor of its 60 days right to appeal the assessment, through the contracting officer, to the agency official responsible for acting on such appeals; and ( 3 ) If funds available for withholding are insufficient to cover liquidated damages, ask the contractor to pay voluntarily such funds as are necessary to cover the total liquidated damage assessment. ( d ) ( i ) The assessment shall become the final administrative determination of contractor liability for liquidated damages when— ( A ) The contractor fails to appeal to the contracting agency within 60 days from the date of the withholding of funds; ( B ) The department agency, following the contractor's appeals, issues a final order which affirms the assessment of liquidated damages or waives damages of $500 or less; or ( C ) The Secretary of Labor takes final action on a recommendation of the agency head to waive or adjust liquidated damages in excess of $500. ( ii ) Upon final administrative determination of the contractor's liability for liquidated damages, the contracting officer shall transmit withheld or collected funds determined to be owed the Government as liquidated damages to the servicing finance and accounting officer for crediting to the appropriate Government Treasury account. The contracting officer shall return any excess withheld funds to the contractor. [56 FR 36358, July 31, 1991, as amended at 77 FR 35880, June 15, 2012]
225.7022-5 Solicitation provision and contract clause. ( a ) Use the provision at 252.225-7059, Prohibition on Certain Procurements from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region—Representation, in solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products, commercial services, and COTS items, that contain the clause at 252.225-7060, Prohibition on Certain Procurements from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
( b ) Use the clause at 252.225-7060, Prohibition on Certain Procurements from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, in solicitations, contracts, and orders for products utilizing funds appropriated or otherwise made available for any fiscal year, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products, commercial services, and COTS items.
[87 FR 76983, Dec. 16, 2022, as amended at 88 FR 6584, Jan. 31, 2023; 88 FR 37797, June 9, 2023]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 05, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 05, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0241. FRANK R. PASCARELLI et al. v. JAMES P. KOEHLER d/b/a TKO d/b/a 

COURTYARD CASPER.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

14A682
U.S. Department of Education

Negotiated Rulemaking

Student Loan Debt Relief

October 10 – 11, 2023

Links shared in the Chat during session 1 

October 10, 2023, Day 1 

Description Link Provided by 

The student debt 

crisis is a crisis of 

non-repayment

https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/crisisof-non-repayment/Jalil Mustaffa 

Bishop-Student 

Loan Borrowers— 

Grad Programs 

Parent PLUS 

discussion in the 

SAVE regulation 

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-13112/p256Valerie Lefor, 

Department of 

Education 

October 11, 2023, Day 2

Description Link Provided by 

How Black borrowers 

experience student 

loans and the 

growing racial justice 

movement around 

student debt 

https://edtrust.org/blackstudentdebthub/ Jalil Mustaffa Bishop, 

Student Loan 

Borrowers – Grad 

Programs 

Parent PLUS 

borrowers: The 

hidden casualties of 

the student debt 

crisis 

https://tcf.org/content/report/parent-plusborrowers-the-hidden-casualties-of-thestudent-debt-crisis/ Jalil Mustaffa Bishop, 

Student Loan 

Borrowers – Grad 

Programs

Student debt 

cancellation should 

consider wealth, not 

income 

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/studentdebt-cancellation-should-consider-wealthnot-income/ Jalil Mustaffa Bishop, 

Student Loan 

Borrowers – Grad 

Programs

New Student Loan 

Repayment Plan 

Benefits Borrowers 

Beyond Lower 

Monthly Payments

https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/writtenmaterials/2023/08/22/new-student-loanrepayment-plan-benefits-borrowers-beyondlower-monthly-payments/Jalil Mustaffa BishopStudent Borrowers—

Grad Programs
All links included in this document are active as of 10/11/2023

By selecting the following link, you will be leaving the Department of Education’s (ED’s) website 

and navigating to a third-party site. This site and its contents are managed by organizations 

that may or may not have a business relationship with ED. As such, the Department is not 

responsible for the product, service, or overall website contents nor can it guarantee that any of 

the above are accessible in accordance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. If you 

need accessibility support, please reach out to the third-party vendor for assistance.
Exhibit
      32.1





**SECTION
      906 CERTIFICATION**








I,
      Jeffrey F. O'Donnell, Chief Executive Officer of PhotoMedex, Inc., a Delaware
      corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as created pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, that:





(1)
      the
      accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
      December 31, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended; and





(2)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




PHOTOMEDEX,
              INC.Date: March
              16, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Jeffrey
              F. O'DonnellJeffrey
              F. O'DonnellChief
              Executive Officer






A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
      otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
      electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
      provided to PhotoMedex, Inc. and will be retained by PhotoMedex, Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.





E-32.1
205.205-70 Notification of bundling of DoD contracts. ( a ) When a proposed acquisition is funded entirely using DoD funds and potentially involves bundling, the contracting officer shall, at least 30 days prior to the release of a solicitation or 30 days prior to placing an order without a solicitation, publish in the Governmentwide point of entry (*https://www.sam.gov*) a notification of the intent to bundle the requirement. In addition, if the agency has determined that measurably substantial benefits are expected to be derived as a result of bundling, the notification shall include a brief description of those benefits (*see* FAR 7.107).
( b ) This requirement is in addition to the notification requirements at FAR 10.001(c)(2)(i) and (ii).
[75 FR 40716, July 13, 2010, as amended at 88 FR 88533, Dec. 22, 2023]
#### Hartz *v.*Hartz.

March 13, 1913.

Temporary alimony. Before Judge Mathews. Bibb superior court. October 19, 191&.

*Miller & Jones,*for plaintiff iu error.

*Minter Wimberly*and *Jesse Harris,*contra.

Eish, C. J.

The evidence being conflicting on all substantial issues, the judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the temporary alimony and counsel fees to the extent allowed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beelc,*J., *absent. The other Justices concur.*
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Henry Hoffman, Appellant, v. Albert, Pearlman & Davidoff et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

Appeal by claimant from a decision of of the Workmen’s Compensation Board denying his claim for benefits. Claimant alleges disability resulting from a fall from a ladder while he was painting a closet during employment. The decision of the board stated that claimant testified that he slipped coming down the ladder and that medical evidence indicated an episode of basal artery insufficiency which could cause the claimant to faint, and then made the findings: “ The Board finds, after a review of the believable evidence, that claimant did not fall off ladder as alleged. The injuries suffered by claimant did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.” The only testimony as to the happening of the accident is the statement by the claimant that he slipped on either the third or second step of the ladder. There is other testimony that the claimant was lying in the hall — not the closet — after the accident and, of course, there is medical testimony mentioned by the board to which we have referred. It is self-evident that we cannot ascertain what “the believable evidence” is from the findings made by the board. “ To adequately review the decision we must know which version the board accepted and must have a factual finding as to what claimant was doing at the time of the accident.” *(Matter of McCaffrey*v. *Pelham Manor Police Dept.,*3 A D 2d 772, 773.)- The board should find (1) whether or not claimant slipped while on the ladder and fell or (2) whether he fell from the ladder by reason of some internal cause and, if so, whether or not the ladder constituted an added hazard of the employment causing the injuries or (3) whether while standing on the floor or walking, he simply fell to the floor from some idiopathic cause, and thereby sustained the skull fracture and other injuries. Decision reversed and matter remitted for proper findings, with costs to appellant. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Hamm, JJ., concur.
201.301 Policy. ( a ) ( 1 ) DoD implementation and supplementation of the FAR is issued in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) under authorization and subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense. The DFARS contains— ( i ) Requirements of law;
( ii ) DoD-wide policies;
( iii ) Delegations of FAR authorities;
( iv ) Deviations from FAR requirements; and
( v ) Policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.
( 2 ) Relevant procedures, guidance, and information that do not meet the criteria in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are issued in the DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI).
( b ) When Federal Register publication is required for any policy, procedure, clause, or form, the department or agency requesting Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment) (USD(A&S)) approval for use of the policy, procedure, clause, or form (see 201.304(1)) must include an analysis of the public comments in the request for approval. Information on determining when a clause requires publication in the Federal Register and approval in accordance with 201.304(1) is provided at PGI 201.301(b).
[56 FR 36284, July 31, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 61591, Nov. 30, 1995; 65 FR 6552, Feb. 10, 2000; 69 FR 63326, Nov. 1, 2004; 80 FR 36718, June 26, 2015; 88 FR 73235, Oct. 25, 2023]
#### Geographia Map Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Morris Goldstein et al., Appellants.

Order entered on January 7, 1963 granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law; plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied; and summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendant Morris Goldstein, with costs to said defendant and with costs to abide the event as between plaintiff and the corporate defendant. The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that there is any factual basis for the cause of action asserted against the individual defendant and summary judgment should be granted in his favor. With respect to the cause of action against the corporate defendant, issues are raised by the affidavits requiring a trial for their resolution. Whether or not the plates are the property of the plaintiff or the corporate defendant may well depend upon the custom and usage of the trade. On the affidavits submitted we find there is a triable issue presented as to the ownership of the plates. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, ¡P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Steuer, JJ.