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

<ARTICLE>               5
<MULTIPLIER>            1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  Jul-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-30-1998
<CASH>                               226722
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        149376
<ALLOWANCES>                         100075
<INVENTORY>                            8426
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     297364
<PP&E>                               291404
<DEPRECIATION>                       273000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       439568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                161111
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                              42880
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                           235577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         439568
<SALES>                              867652
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     873223
<CGS>                                267281
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        267281
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     680557
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (74615)
<INCOME-TAX>                         (7625)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (66990)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        (66990)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (.02)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2





RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION





I, Gai Mar-Chaim, certify that:





1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Andain, Inc.;





2.           Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3.           Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.           The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [omitted pursuant to extended compliance period] for the small business issuer and have:





(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





(b)  [omitted pursuant to extended compliance period]





(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.           The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s independent registered public accounting firm and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




Dated: January 10, 2011
/s/ Gai Mar-Chaim

Gai Mar-Chaim, Secretary/Treasurer (principal financial officer)
​

| ​ |
|---------|

​

NL INDUSTRIES ANNOUNCES QUARTERLY DIVIDEND

FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2024 AT $.08 PER SHARE

​

​

DALLAS, TEXAS – February 28, 2024 - NL Industries, Inc. (NYSE: NL) today announced that its board of directors has declared a quarterly dividend of eight cents ($0.08) per share on its common stock, payable on March 21, 2024 to shareholders of record at the close of business on March 11, 2024.  

​

NL Industries, Inc. is engaged in the component products (security products and recreational marine components) and chemicals (TiO2) businesses.

​

* * * * *

​

**Investor Relations Contact**

​

Bryan A. Hanley

Senior Vice President and Treasurer

Tel. 972-233-1700

----
#### § 1780.5 [Reserved]
§ 1250.357 Suspension and termination. ( a ) The Secretary shall, whenever he finds that this subpart or any provision thereof obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act, terminate or suspend the operation of this subpart or such provision.
( b ) The Secretary may conduct a referendum at any time, and shall hold a referendum on request of 10 percent or more of the number of egg producers voting in the referendum approving this subpart, to determine whether egg producers favor the termination or suspension of this subpart, and the Secretary shall suspend or terminate such subpart at the end of 6 months after he determines that suspension or termination of the subpart is approved or favored by a majority of the egg producers voting in such referendum who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the production of commercial eggs, and who produced more than 50 percent of the volume of eggs produced by the egg producers voting in the referendum.
#### § 1489.29 Property standards.

The RAPP Participant shall insure all RAPP-funded property and equipment acquired in furtherance of program activities and safeguard such against theft, damage and unauthorized use. The Participant shall promptly report any loss, theft, or damage of property to the insurance company.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

MILTON DAVID PLUMMER, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

RENEE BAKER, L.C.C., 

Respondent. 

No. 85112 

FILED 

AUG 1 9 2022 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERK Qc SUPREME COURT 

BY 

DEP iYCI C"- ( (f

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a 

motion for relief from judgment or order pursuant to Nevada Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b). Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from 

such an order in a criminal matter, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal. Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990) 

(explaining that court has jurisdiction only when statute or court rule 

provides for appeal). Accordingly, this court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

Silver 

, 

Cadish Pickering 

cc: Hon. Jim C. Shirley, District Judge 

Milton David Plummer 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clerk of the Court/Court Administrator 

.-,25939

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

EOF 14147A
3 : Ur 1 

### AiiO N R/MiON S 

# Cit y o f Alpen a m i ;',\R? 3 A;Q = W

Marc h 19,201 2 U.S . Senato rCar l Levi n 26 9 Russel l Offic e Buildin g Washington . D C 20510-220 2 RE : Alpen a Ai rServic e Dea rSenato rLevin , A s yo u ar e aware , th e U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n wil l b e makin g a decisio n verysoo n regardin g th e curren t roun d o f bid s fo rEA S fundin g t o provid e ai rservic e t o Alpena , Michigan . Wit h th e suppor t of th e Alpen a Cit yCouncil , th e Alpen a Count yCommissioners , th e Alpen a Count yRegiona l Airpor t Manager , th e Alpen a Are a Chambe ro f Commerce , an d th e Targe t Alpen a Economi cDevelopmen t Director , th e Mayo rof Alpen a requeste d tha t th e DO T rejec t th e curren t bi d proposa l an d ope n a fourt h cycle , an d w e ar e askin g yo u t o support ou rdecision . Thi s entir e proces s ha s bee n verycostl yan d tim e consumin g fo rth e leader s of ou rcommunit y an d w e fee l tha t ou rloca l ta xpayer s deserv e mor e tim e fo ru s t o finis h wha t w e hav e started . An d th e federa l ta xpayer s deserv e t o kno w tha t EA S fundin g i s bein g spen t a s efficientl yan d effectivel ya s possible . W e hav e forme d a team o f representative s fro m eac h o f th e abov e name d entitie s an d secure d th e service s of a professiona l airlin e consultant . Sinc e then , w e hav e visite d SkyWes t Airline s an d the ystrongl yconsidere d biddin g i n th e thir d round . W e hav e als o bee n i n direc t contac t wit h America n Eagl e Airlines . W e ar e i n activ e discussion s wit h Publi c Charter s an d jus t tw o day s ag o learne d tha t thei ralternativ e EA S fundin g proposa l wa s approve d t o provid e servic e t o Manistee , Michigan . Thi s progra m i s new , s o therefor e wil l tak e u s tim e t o lear n an d understan d i f i t wil l fi t th e need s o f ou rcommunity . 

# ALKN H MICHHSWTSADVHHSHOR E

### W e understan d th e DOT' S responsibilit yt o relieve Delt a o

f it s obligatio n t o provid e ai rservice to ou rcommunity , bu t we als o hav e a responsibilit

yt o ou rconstituent s an d fee l that i t i s not askin g to o muc h t o give u s mor

e time , measure d i n months , t o d o wha t i s i n th e bes

t interest o

f everyon e i n Northeast Michigan . W e hav e mad e great stride s i n th e last severa l weeks , bu t al l tangibl e offer s are hingin g o n on e decisio n o ranothe ran d we're tol d that i t wil l take som e tim e befor e an ycommitments ca n b e mad e b yairline s that are considerin g a n agreemen t wit h Alpena , Th e Alpen a Cit

yCounci l unanimousl yapprove d th e contents o f thi s lette ran d strongl yurge s yo u t o ech o ou rvoic e t o th e U.S . Departmen t o f Transportation . Than k

yo u fo ryou rattentio n t o thi s matte ran d fo rrepresentin g ou rgrea t communit

yan d it s growin g economy . Sincerely , MatthewJ . Waligora Mayo ro f Alpen a

MiCHlSASfSADVENSHOR E
Editorial Note on Part 1940
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1940 appear at 80 FR 9876, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1940.957 State coordinator. The Governor will appoint an officer or employee of State government as State coordinator in order for a State to become and remain an eligible State under this subpart. The State coordinator will have the following duties and responsibilities: ( a ) Manage, operate, and carry out the instructions of the panel;
( b ) Serve as liaison between the panel and the Federal and State agencies involved in rural development;
( c ) Coordinate the efforts of interested rural residents with the panel and ensure that all rural residents in the State are informed about the manner in which assistance under designated rural development programs is provided to the State pursuant to this subpart, and if requested, provide information to State residents; and
( d ) Coordinate panel activities with Rural Development.
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. IZZO et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Joseph Izzo and Patsy Corono.

No opinion. Judgment of conviction affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-111381, 333-106667 and 333-95711) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos. 333-165750, 333-154748, 333-150484, 333-131494, 333-123192, 333-119049, 333-108175, 333-104672, 333-101479, 333-99221, 333-91812, 333-91764, 333-81398, 333-71530, 333-71528, 333-66076, 333-66074, 333-65512, 333-59428, 333-58896,333-57542, 333-48716, 333-48714, 333-48712, 333-44264, 333-32898, 333-93839, 333-93719, 333-79997, 333-76667, 333-76665, 333-68703, 333-52035, 333-24831, 333-00535 and 033-59153) of Cypress Semiconductor Corporation of our report datedFebruary 28, 2013 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in Cypress Semiconductor Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 30, 2012. 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

San Jose, California 

February 28, 2013
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: Trends and Characteristics of Delinquency Cases Handled in Juvenile Court, 2020      

# Resource: Trends and Characteristics of Delinquency Cases Handled in Juvenile Court, 2020

This data snapshot (PDF, 1 page) documents workloads of the nation's juvenile courts in 2020. This resource provides data for overall delinquency offense cases as well as person, property, drug, and public order offenses. Data on law-violating behavior by youth referred to juvenile court in 2020 may be impacted by the stay-at-home orders and school closures that occurred at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.**Learn more.**
#### In the Matter of Hyman Bravin, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

July 10, 1969.

*Michael Franck*of counsel *(John G. Bonomi,*attorney), for petitioner.

*Frederick H. Block*of counsel *(Bernstein, 8 earn ell, Kaplan S Block,*attorneys), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The Committee on Grievances of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York has moved to confirm the report of the Referee designated to hear charges against the respondent. Respondent admits the facts forming the basis of the charges and does not dispute impropriety. The sole question is the sanction to be imposed.

The first charge concerns the use by respondent of funds delivered to him in escrow by a client for use on a closing. The second concerns the issuance over several months of a substantial number of checks which were returned by respondent’s bank for insufficient funds.

*358It appears that respondent has been in practice for some 31 years. He has enjoyed a substantial practice which he has conducted with all propriety. However, he failed to manage his financial affairs in a proper manner, which led to the practices embraced in the second charge and eventually to the more serious dereliction which constituted the first charge. Throughout he was under the optimistic impression that he could by receipt of fees or by borrowing make good the moneys appropriated before he would be called upon to deliver -the funds.

A lawyer is not allowed to take that risk with funds entrusted to him, even if his' expectations are sincerely held. And the fact that eventually his defalcation was made good does not excuse it. Furthermore, respondent’s practice of issuing worthless checks as a temporary stopgap for his difficulties cannot be condoned *(Matter of Kaufman,*29 A D 2d 298; *Matter of Vyner,*12 A D 2d 10).

We take into consideration respondent’s long period of faithful service at the Bar, his valuable communal services, the absence of a vicious intent, his good faith in making restoration and his candid admission of the facts. With these in mind we find that suspension for a period of one year would be appropriate.

Motion to confirm the report of the Referee sustaining the charges should be granted and the respondent should be suspended from practice for a period -of one year.

Eager, J. P., Capozzori, Timer, Nunez and Steuer, JJ., concur.

Respondent suspended for a period of one year, effective August 11, 1969.
119 So.2d 445

#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. GIFFORD-HILL AND COMPANY, Inc.

No. 45159.

April 18, 1960.

*507D. Ross Banister, Glenn S. Darsey, Braxton B. Croom, Brunswig Sholars, Baton Rouge, for relator.

Stafford & Pitts, Alexandria, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways, has applied to this Court for remedial writs complaining of a ruling of the district court which denied it a continuance of the above entitled cause, which is fixed for trial on April 19, 1960.

Applicant alleges, among other things, that it is entitled to a continuance of the case, as a matter of right, because it is fixed for trial on General Election Day, which is a legal holiday in Louisiana and was proclaimed as such by the Governor on March 15, 1960.

Defendant company successfully opposed relator’s motion for a continuance in the lower court and contends in its opposition filed in this Court that the Governor is without authority to designate April 19,-1960, a legal holiday as the right to declare legal holidays is vested exclusively in the *509Legislature under Article 19, Section 22, of the Constitution.

We think the judge erred in denying applicant’s motion for a continuance for the reason that days upon which general elections are held have been designated legal holidays by the Legislature. R.S. 18:552 declares:

> “Days upon which a general or local election is held under this Part are, for all purposes whatever, legal holidays in the localities where the elections are held.”

In view of the fact that the case is fixed for trial on tomorrow, April 19, 1960, the granting of a rule to show cause with a stay order would render the issue herein moot at the time the writs were made returnable to this Court. In these circumstances and because we are of the opinion that relator is entitled in law to a continuance of the case, we find it necessary, in the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction, to order that the ruling of the respondent judge of April 8, 1960, denying the motion for a continuance be annulled and set aside and said judge is forthwith ordered to refix said case for trial on such other date as, in his discretion, he may deem best.

FOURNET, C. J., absent.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ROBERT ALTON HARRIS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CR-03-18) Submitted: July 9, 2004 Decided: July 30, 2004 Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andrew J. Katz, THE KATZ WORKING FAMILIES LAW FIRM, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Stephanie L. Hai nes, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robert Alton Harris appeals his sentence, following a guilty plea to transmitting a threatening communication, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876 (2000). The district court sentenced Harris to forty-one months of imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Harris contends that the district court clearly erred in denying his request for a downward sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2003). Harris also requests a remand to the district court for a new sentencing hearing based on a violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Finding no reversible error, we affirm. A district court’s determination as to the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility is a factual question reviewed for clear error. United States v. Ruhe , 191 F.3d 376, 388 (4th Cir. 1999). The burden is on the defendant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to the adjustment. United States v. Urrego-Linares , 879 F.2d 1234, 1238- 39 (4th Cir. 1989). A guilty plea does not automatically entitle a defendant to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. See USSG § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). A defendant may not be entitled to a sentencing adjustment for acceptance of responsibility if the defendant engages in conduct inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. Id. Although Harris admitted that he sent a- 3 - threatening communication to his wife, two witnesses testified that Harris made additional threats against his wife and others involved in his case even after he pled guilty. Thus, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Harris’s conduct after he pled guilty was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. Further, because we find no Bradyviolation, we decline Harris’s request to remand the case to the district court. Accordingly, we affirm Harris’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED