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


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                              1,309
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      19,533
<ALLOWANCES>                        3,784
<INVENTORY>                           936
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   21,122
<PP&E>                             41,533
<DEPRECIATION>                     17,529
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     91,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   0
<BONDS>                            36,370
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                           940
<COMMON>                           65,631
<OTHER-SE>                        (48,013)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       91,587
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 0116,498
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     100,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   25,564
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  3,913
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (13,043)
<INCOME-TAX>                          280
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (13,030)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (13,310)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.45)



</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 1944
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1944 appear at 80 FR 9885, Feb. 24, 2015.

§ 1944.660 Authorized representative of the HPG applicant and Rural Development point of contact. ( a ) Rural Development will deal only with authorized representatives designated by the HPG applicant.
( b ) The State Director will designate either the State Office and/or the District Office as the processing office and/or the servicing office for the HPG program. The State Director's selection may be based on staffing, total program size, number of preapplications anticipated, type of applicants, or similar criteria. The State Director must publish this designation each year at the time the Federal Register is published informing the public of the open period for acceptance of preapplications as outlined in § 1944.678 of this subpart.
#### Philip Le Vine, Respondent, v. Arnold Reuben et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Appeal by defendants Reuben from three orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, two dated November 14, 1968 and one dated December 4, 1968. (1) Order of November 14, 1968, which denied the motion of defendants Reuben for a bill of particulars, reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and motion granted. The bill of particulars shall be served within 10 days after entry of the order hereon. If plaintiff is unable to furnish, or has no knowledge with respect to, a particular item, he shall so state. In such event, plaintiff shall furnish the particulars requested with respect to such item in a further bill of particulars to be served within two days after completion of the pretrial examinations directed in the order dated December 4, 1968; except that, if plaintiff is still unable to furnish such particulars at that time, he shall so state in such further bill of particulars. While we agree with the Special Term’s criticism of appellants’ lack of diligence in requesting a bill of particulars, we are nevertheless of the opinion that, on balance, and under all the facts and circumstances adduced, the interests of justice would best be served and it would be more in keeping with the provident exercise of discretion to require plaintiff to afford to appellants such enlightenment as they now seek and as plaintiff can furnish with respect to his claims. (2) Order of November 14, 1968, which denied the motion of defendants Reuben to (a) vacate plaintiff’s note of issue and statement of readiness and (b) strike the case from the calendar, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. The time of defendants Reuben to file a jury demand, if they he so advised, is hereby extended so as to permit same to be filed within 10 days after entry of the order hereon. (3) Order of December 4, 1968, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Rabin, Acting P. J., Benjamin, Munder, Martuscello and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Contents
- Section I - Figures
Mortality
Hospitalizations

- Section II - Tables
Mortality
Hospitalizations

- Addendum
- Appendix
- Cross-Index
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ALONZO CHARLES GREENE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-112-AW-MAF

MARK INCH, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

In a June 4, 2020 Report and Recommendation, the magistrate judge 

recommended dismissal. ECF No. 9. No party has filed any objection. Having 

reviewed the record, I conclude that the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted. Plaintiff was ordered to amend his complaint, and he did not do so. It 

appears he has abandoned this case. 

The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) is adopted and incorporated 

into this order. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “This case is dismissed 

without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute.”

The clerk will close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 15, 2020. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00112-AW-MAF Document 10 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 1
§ 25.201 Application. No rural area may be considered for designation pursuant to this part unless the application: ( a ) Demonstrates that the nominated rural area satisfies the eligibility criteria contained in § 25.100;
( b ) Includes a strategic plan, which meets the requirements contained in § 25.202;
( c ) Includes the written commitment of the applicant, as applicable, that EZ/EC SSBG funds will be used to supplement, not replace, other Federal and non-Federal funds available for financing services or activities that promote the purposes of section 2007 of the Social Security Act; and
( d ) Includes such other information as may be required by USDA.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY: 

Federal Election Commission.

# DATE AND TIME: 

Tuesday, November 16, 2010, at 10 a.m.

# PLACE: 

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

# STATUS: 

This meeting will be closed to the public.

# ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: 

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g. Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration. Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.

# PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: 

Judith Ingram, Press Officer Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shawn Woodhead Werth,

Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-29072 Filed 11-18-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40696 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SAMUEL WILLIAM COCKE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-97-CR-9-1

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Samuel William Cocke appeals his guilty-plea conviction for making threats against the President and successors to the President in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871. Cocke contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because it did not allege that he intended to carry out the threat or that he intended the threat to be conveyed to the President. Cocke’s argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent in United States v. DeShazo , 565 F.2d 893, 895 (5thNo. 98-40696 -2- Cir. 1978). Cocke argues that the district court erred in not making a factual finding concerning whether he actually traveled to Washington, D.C., in February 1997 to conduct surveillance of the White House before the district court increased his offense level under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2A6.1(b)(1). Because Cocke told Secret Service agents in interviews that he conducted surveillance of the White House and Cocke did not present any specific evidence at sentencing to rebut the facts presented in the Presentence Report (PSR) concerning his actions, the district court was entitled to adopt the facts in the PSR without further inquiry. See United States v. Sherbak , 950 F.2d 1095, 1099-1100 (5th Cir. 1992). Cocke argues that the district court erred in not decreasing his offense level by four levels under § 2A6.1(b)(4), which provides for such a reduction if the threat “involved a single instance evidencing little or no deliberation.” § 2A6.1(b)(4). Because Cocke’s actions included obtaining stationery, searching for an address, obtaining postage, and mailing the letter, his actions were not spontaneous and did not warrant a reduction in his offense level under § 2A6.1(b)(4). See United States v.
Stevenson , 126 F.3d 662, 665 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.
Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686-2   Filed 02/28/23   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:19-md-02885-MCR-HTC   Document 3686-2   Filed 02/28/23   Page 2 of 2
#### SUSSMANN v. MacKEWAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Evidence (§ 370*)—Documentabt Evidence—Authentication.

The admission in evidence, in an action for rent, of a lease upon the back of which were assignments from the lessor to W. and from W. to plaintiff, without proof of the genuineness of the signatures to such assignments, was error, as defendant might be subjected to double liability.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 1538, 1559, 1560, 1562-1578, 1592; Dec. Dig. § 370.*]

*153Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.

Action by Matilda Sussmann against Ralph Waldo MacKewan. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ.

Louis J. Bernstein, of New York City (R. W. MacKewan, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Henry Feldman, of Brooklyn, for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff sued for rent for the months of August and September, 1913. He offered a lease, which was received in evidence over the objections of defendant’s counsel. This lease was signed by defendant, and ran from one Samuel Glass as landlord. Glass’ name was signed to the lease in the following form: “Samuel Glass, by Bert G. Faulhaber & Company, Agents, B. J. Faulhaber, Prest.” The authority of Faulhaber was not shown. Upon the back of the lease appeared assignments thereof from Glass to one Wolf, and from Wolf to the plaintiff; but no evidence was given as to their signatures, or that such assignments were actually made by those parties.

We think the introduction of the lease without such proof was error. Neither Glass nor Wolf are bound by the assignment, unless it is shown that such assignments were actually made by them, and so far as appears from the record the defendant may be liable to Glass, or, if the lease was properly assigned to Wolf, then to him for the rent sued for. The affirmance of this judgment upon the present record might subject the defendant to a double liability for the rent sued for in this action.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-8064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GREGG LAMONT SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:02-cr-00215-AW; 8:05-cv-02532-AW) Submitted: July 31, 2007 Decided: August 15, 2007 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregg Lamont Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Pauze, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gregg Lamont Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, entered on July 17, 2006. According Smith the benefit of Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) and Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988), the earliest date his notice of appeal may be deemed filed is December 5, 2006, beyond both the sixty-day appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), and the thirty-day excusable neglect period allowed under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). We construe Smith’s notice of appeal, in which he alleged he did not timely receive the district court’s final order, as a motion to reopen the time to note an appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). See United States v. Feuver , 236 F.3d 725, 729 & n.7 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for the limited purpose of permitting that court to determine whether Smith can satisfy the requirements for reopening the appeal period set forth in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). SeeOgden v. San Juan County , 32 F.3d 452, 454 (10th Cir. 1994). The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED
Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ex rel. ROBERT V SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv3678-MCR-EMT

[SEALED]

JAY A ODOM,

OKALOOSA COUNTY BOARD OF 

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

The docket reflects that Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint under seal 

in this false claims action, adding the State of Florida and substantive new 

allegations. The State has now declined to intervene. The United States is directed 

to advise the Court within seven (7) as to whether it is still considering the new 

allegations of the Amended Complaint or whether the Amended Complaint can now 

be unsealed and the Plaintiff be allowed to proceed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of July 2022.

M. Casey Rodgers M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 48 Filed 07/19/22 Page 1 of 1
#### The State ex rel. Musick, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Musick v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 133.]

(No. 97-148

Submitted July 15, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*James C. Ayers Law Office*and *Jeffery M. Decile,*for appellant.

*Betty D. Montgomery,*Attorney General, and *William D. Haders,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, ReSnick, F.E. SweenEy, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
§ 249.18 Audits. ( a ) *Federal access to information.* The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, or duly authorized State auditors shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the State agency and their contractors, for the purpose of making surveys, audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts.
( b ) *State agency response.* The State agency may take exception to particular audit findings and recommendations. The State agency shall submit a response or statement to FNS as to the action taken or planned regarding the findings. A proposed corrective action plan developed and submitted by the State agency must include specific time frames for its implementation and for completion of the correction of deficiencies and problems leading to the deficiencies.
( c ) *Corrective action.* FNS will determine whether SFMNP deficiencies identified in an audit have been adequately corrected. If additional corrective action is necessary, FNS shall schedule a follow-up review, allowing a reasonable time for such corrective action to be taken.
( d ) *State sponsored audits.* State and local agencies must conduct independent audits in accordance with 2 CFR part 200, subpart F, Audit Requirements and USDA implementing regulations 2 CFR part 400 and part 415, as applicable. A State or local agency may elect to obtain either an organization-wide audit or an audit of the Program if it qualifies to make such an election under applicable regulations.
[71 FR 74630, Dec. 12, 2006, as amended at 81 FR 66497, Sept. 28, 2016]
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2180 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2180

  To amend the Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement 
                Program in title 10, United States Code.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2013

   Mr. Larsen of Washington introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Procurement Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement 
                Program in title 10, United States Code.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO PROCUREMENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
              COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM.

    (a) Increase in Government Share.--Section 2413(b) of title 10, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``one-half'' both places it appears and 
        inserting ``65 percent''; and
            (2) by striking ``three-fourths'' and inserting ``75 
        percent''.
    (b) Increase in Limitations on Value of Assistance.--Section 
2414(a) of such title is amended--
            (1) in paragraphs (1) and (4), by striking ``$600,000'' and 
        inserting ``$750,000'';
            (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$300,000'' and 
        inserting ``$450,000''; and
            (3) in paragraph (3), by striking ``$150,000'' and 
        inserting ``$300,000''.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 30, 2017

No. 04-17-00713-CR

IN RE Esmeralda C. RODRIGUEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On October 27, 2017, Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

considered the petition and is of the opinion Relator is not entitled to the relief sought. 

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The 

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on October 30, 2017.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of October, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 147709, styled Esmeralda C. Rodriguez v. State of Texas, pending in the 

County Court at Law No. 13, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Crystal D. Chandler presiding.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of Chardan South China Acquisition
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2005 (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof, I Kerry Propper, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) 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 result of operations
            of the Company.


By:  /s/ Kerry Propper                               Dated: November 14, 2005
  ---------------------------------------------
        Kerry Propper
        Chief Executive Officer and Secretary
        (Principal Executive Officer)
###### Editorial Note on Part 1956

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1956 appear at 80 FR 9901, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### § 1956.99 Exception authority.

The Administrator may, in individual cases, make an exception to any requirement or provision of this subpart which is not inconsistent with the authorizing statute or other applicable law if the Administrator determines that application of the requirement or provision would adversely affect the Government's interest. The Administrator will exercise this authority only at the request of the State Director and on the recommendation of the appropriate program Assistant Administrator. Requests for exceptions must be made in writing by the State Director and supported with documentation to explain the adverse affect on the Government's interest, propose alternative courses of action, and show how the adverse affect will be eliminated or minimized if the exception is granted. Any settlement actions approved by the Administrator under this section will be documented on Form FmHA or its successor agency under Public Law 103-354 1956-1 and returned to the State Office for submission to the Finance Office.
#### § 1784.1 Purpose.

This part sets forth the policies and procedures that will apply when the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) makes grants under the Rural Alaska Village Grant (RAVG) program (7 U.S.C. 1926d) to native villages in Alaska. The grants will be provided directly to a native village or jointly with either The State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) or The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) for the benefit of native villages in Alaska.

[85 FR 23212, Apr. 27, 2020]