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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             436
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      734
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                       1968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3188
<PP&E>                                            1423
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1303
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1358
<BONDS>                                            600
<COMMON>                                          2509
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         55
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1299)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3373
<SALES>                                           4416
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  4416
<CGS>                                             3256
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1166
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (439)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         1
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (440)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (440)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)
        

</TABLE>
#### Robert J. Glessing et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Respondent, and Board of Supervisors of the County of Seneca et al., Appellants.

Order uanimously reversed, without costs) and matter remitted to Special Term, Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings not inconsistent with the memorandum. Memorandum: The complaint in this action sought reapportionment of the Seneca County Board of Supervisors to remedy the existing plan where the Supervisor of each town had one vote. By order of July 15, 1966 the court approved a temporary interim plan of *978so-called weighted voting and directed the board to prepare and submit to the court a permanent plan. The record contains an order of September 23, 1966 disapproving such a permanent plan on the ground that “ weighted voting does not meet constitutional standards.” The proposed plan, however, is not before us nor is any resolution of the board adopting such a plan. After we had stricken the case from the Day Calendar because of the incomplete record, an affidavit was submitted wherein it is stated that such a plan was adopted. Such action was orally reported by the County Attorney to the Special Term Justice who promptly and orally rejected the plan. The order appealed from was thereafter made. It can be ascertained from recitals in the order that the permanent plan, while retaining weighted voting, materially altered the interim plan as to the number of Supervisors and their respective votes in two towns. It is obvious that an issue of this importance may not be adjudicated in such an informal fashion. The resolution of the board properly certified should be formally presented to Special Term upon notice to the other parties to the action who should have an opportunity to be heard before a final order is made. Any party seeking a review of such order may then appeal anew. In view of the long delay in presenting the appeal from the order of September, 1966 this matter should receive the prompt attention of all concerned. (Appeal from order of Special Term disapproving plan of voting reapportionment. Case stricken from calendar, February 16, 1967; restored by order entered March 30, 1967.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Improving Services for Expectant and Parenting Youth in Care      

# Resource: Improving Services for Expectant and Parenting Youth in Care

This bulletin (PDF, 18 pages) provides strategies for caseworkers, agencies, and other youth-serving professionals to better support expectant and parenting youth and their families. The bulletin provides tips for working with these young people and shares case-level and systemwide strategies that contribute to overall improved outcomes. **Learn more.**
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Wojewodzic, Respondent, v. Republic Steel Corp., Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Herlihy, J.

This appeal concerns the adequacy of the board’s finding of total disability due to silicosis. The pertinent part of the board’s finding states: “'Claimant is permanently and totally disabled due to silicosis and heart disease. Medical evidence indicates the silicosis was a contributing factor in the disability. The Board *finds*that claimant is totally disabled due to silicosis and that disablement from the silicosis occurred on February 2, 1959.” (Emphasis supplied.) Section 39, as applicable, states: “compensation shall not be payable for partial disability due to silicosis”. Upon first reading the board’s decision, it might indicate there was some question as to its intent but the last-quoted paragraph unequivocally makes a *finding*in compliance with the mandate of the statute. There is substantial evidence to sustain this factual determination. The following colloquy took place upon cross-examination of the claimant’s doctor: *“*Q. Would you say it [heart disease] would disable the claimant? A. I wouldn’t say it would disable this claimant, no. Q. It doesn’t play any factor in the overall disability? A. The man has total disability as regards silicosis. That is your answer. Q. In other words then it is your testimony that this other condition is playing no part in the disability, is that correct ? • A. It plays no part in the fact that he is totally disabled from silicosis.” The record as a whole confirms the board’s determination. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor and Aulisi, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6895

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. GERALD DAMONE HOPPER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:95-cr-00119-TW; 3:96-cv-00217-MR) Submitted: August 19, 2008 Decided: September 10, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald Damone Hopper, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.*As an additional ground for denying relief, the district court found that Hopper’s Rule 60(b) motion amounted to an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion. Our review of Hopper’s motion leads us to conclude that the motion was a true Rule 60(b) motion. 2 PER CURIAM: Gerald Damone Hopper seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a subst antial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hopper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Opinion filed July 9, 2009

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

____________

No. 11-09-00031-CR

__________

 AVION HARRIS, Appellant

V.

 STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 2

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR-2008-06959-B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Avion Harris has filed in this court a motion to dismiss his appeal. The motion is signed by

both appellant and his counsel. The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

July 9, 2009 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

February 1, 2022

v No. 354667

Tuscola Circuit Court

BRANDI MARIE HULL, LC No. 19-015018-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 354735

Tuscola Circuit Court

ANTHONY RAY HULL, LC No. 19-015020-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CAVANAGH, P.J., and SHAPIRO and GADOLA, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring).

I concur in affirming the defendants’ convictions. However, I do not agree with the 

majority that the evidence was sufficient to find Ms. Hull guilty of resisting and obstructing based 

on her actions when the officer initially came to her door. The fact that she initially told the officers 

she was Brandie Hull, not Schook, is of no consequence since within a second or two of that 

statement she told the officers that she had recently been married and that the person they sought 

was her, though her name had changed. I also do not find probative defendant telling the officers 

that she had never been stopped for a loud exhaust. Her statement was true and does not evidence 

an intent to resist. Finally, I do not see evidence in the videotape that she made any efforts to 

physically resist at that point, though her husband clearly did. Nevertheless, I concur because Ms. 

Hull’s actions following the police’s return to the house were sufficient for a jury to convict.
-2-

Having reviewed this case, I find it difficult to understand why the LEIN system or police 

practices cannot be modified so that an officer executing a bench warrant will be able to accurately 

inform the arrestee why they are being arrested. In this case, the officer told Ms. Hull—based on 

the information he had—that the warrant was for a failure to appear on a citation for improper 

exhaust noise, a citation which Ms. Hull correctly told the officer she had never received. The fact 

that the officer communicated inaccurate information was the instigating event in the dispute that 

ended in the defendants’ arrests; it placed the officer in unnecessary danger and resulted in arrests 

and convictions for a crime that might readily have been avoided. 

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
Exhibit 32.02

                            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 Aradyme Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James R. Spencer,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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




/s/ James R. Spencer
-----------------------
James R. Spencer
Chief Financial Officer
January 17, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by 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
has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### 9904.420 Accounting for independent research and development costs and bid and proposal costs.
6101.53 Accelerated procedure [Rule 53]. ( a ) *Election.* The accelerated procedure is available solely at an appellant's election and is limited to appeals in which there is a monetary amount in dispute and the requirements for accelerated disposition set forth in the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7106(a), are met. The appellant may elect the accelerated procedure up to 30 days after receiving the respondent's answer.
( b ) *Procedure.* The respondent may object to an election, on the grounds that Rule 53(a) (paragraph (a) of this section) is not satisfied, within 10 days after receiving the election. If the accelerated procedure is used, the Board will set a schedule for timely resolution of the appeal. The schedule may restrict or eliminate pleadings, discovery, and other prehearing activities.
( c ) *Decision.* The presiding judge may issue a decision with the concurrence of at least one panel member. If the presiding judge and a panel member disagree, the panel will decide the appeal. If possible, the Board will resolve the appeal within 180 days after the appellant elects the accelerated procedure. The Board may extend the appeal schedule if an appellant does not adhere to the established schedule.
#### § 1001.85 Assessment for order administration.

See § 1000.85.
#### Metromedia, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Town of North Hempstead et al., Respondents.

In an action to declare a sign ordinance unconstitutional, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 11, 1979, which denied their motion for an order staying enforcement of a judgment of the same court, entered December 6, 1978, which dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint on the merits and ordered them to remove their billboards which are in violation of the ordinance. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs entered into a stipulation agreement that authorized defendants to enter judgment against plaintiffs upon a final resolution of the constitutional questions in a similar case in any manner other than favorable to plaintiffs. When that case was not determined in favor of plaintiffs’ position, defendants entered judgment. Special Term’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a stay of judgment pending final resolution of the constitutional questions in a similar case in California was not an improvident exercise of discretion. The constitutional questions in this case have been definitively decided by our Court of Appeals, and the appeal to the United States Supreme Court was dismissed for want of a substantial Federal question (see *Suffolk Outdoor Adv. Co. v Hulse,*43 NY2d 483, app dsmd 439 US 808). In view of the above case and the fact that plaintiffs voluntarily entered into the stipulation permitting defendants to enter judgment against them, the order of Special Term must be affirmed. Damiani, J. P., Gulotta, Margett and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1186 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1186

 To amend the Department of State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017 to 
 modify the biannual report on overseas capital construction projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 2023

  Mr. Lynch introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Department of State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017 to 
 modify the biannual report on overseas capital construction projects.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Embassy Construction Accountability 
Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO BIANNUAL REPORT ON OVERSEAS CAPITAL 
              CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 118 of the Department of 
State Authorities Act, Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-323; 22 U.S.C. 
304) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and the Committees on Appropriations'' 
        and inserting ``, the Committees on Appropriations''; and
            (2) by inserting after ``House of Representatives,'' the 
        following: ``, and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
        Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
        Oversight and Accountability of the House of Representatives''.
    (b) Contents.--Subsection (b) of such section is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end before the 
        period the following: ``and, when the current cost estimate 
        exceeds the initial cost estimate by 15 percent or more, an 
        explanation of the causal or contributing factors resulting in 
        the increased estimated cost, as well as how the Department 
        plans to mitigate the risk of further potential cost 
        increases''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(10) If the current date of estimated completion reported 
        under paragraph (9) exceeds the date of estimated completion 
        reported under paragraph (8) by 180 days or more, a description 
        of the causal or contributing factors that resulted in the 
        revised estimated completion date, as well as how the 
        Department plans to mitigate the operational impacts of the 
        delay.
            ``(11) Whether the Department has issued a stop-work order 
        or suspension-of-work order on any component or subset of the 
        project, the expected duration of any such order, and the 
        justification for any such order.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 10346 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                               H. R. 10346

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
   Veterans Affairs to reimburse State homes for the cost of, or to 
furnish to State homes, certain costly medications provided to veterans 
   who receive nursing home care in such State homes, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 10, 2024

Mrs. Miller-Meeks introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
   Veterans Affairs to reimburse State homes for the cost of, or to 
furnish to State homes, certain costly medications provided to veterans 
   who receive nursing home care in such State homes, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Providing Veterans Essential 
Medications Act''.

SEC. 2. REIMBURSEMENT OF A STATE HOME FOR HIGH COST MEDICATIONS.

    Section 1745(a)(3) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Payment'' and inserting ``(A) Subject to 
        subparagraph (B), payment''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
    ``(B) In addition to payment described in subparagraph (A), the 
Secretary shall, at the election of a covered State home--
            ``(i) reimburse the covered State home for a costly 
        medication; or
            ``(ii) furnish such costly medication to the covered State 
        home.
    ``(C) In this paragraph:
            ``(i) The term `costly medication' means a drug or medicine 
        for which the average wholesale price for one month's supply, 
        plus a 3 percent transaction fee, exceeds 8.5 percent of the 
        payment under subparagraph (A) by the Secretary to a covered 
        State home for care provided to the veteran who receives such 
        costly medication during such month.
            ``(ii) The term `covered State home' means a State home 
        that, in the course of nursing home care provided pursuant to a 
        contract (or agreement) under paragraph (1), provides to a 
        veteran a costly medication.''.
                                 <all>
```