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


<ARTICLE>                     5                                                
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         66,052
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 388,464
<ALLOWANCES>                                   10,500
<INVENTORY>                                   760,698
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,357,524
<PP&E>                                       1,126,255
<DEPRECIATION>                                 546,498
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,295,863
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          791,654
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                        10,549
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,779,625
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,295,863
<SALES>                                      2,646,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,646,650
<CGS>                                        1,036,651
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,432,671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                122,791
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (109,750)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            232,541
<DISCONTINUED>                                (459,503)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (226,962)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)
        


</TABLE>
DISCRETIONARY APPEALS ALLOWED

98-952.

#### Biddle v. Warren Gen. Hosp.

TrumlWl App. No. 96-T-5582. On appeal of Robert L. Holland and Elliott, Heller, Maas, Moro *&*Magill Co. and on appeal of Warren General Hospital and Kevin Andrews. Discretionary appeals allowed.

On cross-appeal of Cheryl A. Biddle et al. Discretionary cross-appeal allowed.

Cook, J., would allow Propositions of Law Nos. III through VII only on the cross-appeal.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-41450

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN LEDESMA-SANCHEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:04-CR-241-ALL

--------------------

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Ledesma-Sanchez (Ledesma) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and sentence for attempted illegal reentry following

deportation. He argues for the first time on appeal that the

sentencing provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). Ledesma acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he

seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi
No. 04-41450

-2-

did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at

489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.

2000).

For the first time on appeal, Ledesma argues that the

district court erred in imposing a sentence under a mandatory

guideline scheme, in violation of United States v. Booker, 125

S. Ct. 738, 756-57 (2005). Because he did not raise this issue

in the district court, this court reviews the argument for plain

error. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728,

732-33 (5th Cir. 2005). Ledesma makes no showing, as required by

Valenzuela-Quevedo, that the district court would likely have

sentenced him differently under an advisory sentencing scheme. 

See id. at 733-34. Similarly, there is no indication from the

court’s remarks at sentencing that the district court would have

reached a different conclusion. Thus, Ledesma has not met his

burden to show that the district court’s imposition of a sentence

under a mandatory guideline scheme was plain error. See id.; see

also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 (1993). 

Ledesma’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Ledesma also contends that the written judgment incorrectly

reflects that he was convicted of being present in the United

States rather than of attempted illegal reentry, and he asks that

the district court amend the written judgment pursuant to FED.

R. CRIM. P. 36. The record reflects that Ledesma in fact pleaded

guilty to attempted illegal reentry. Accordingly, we remand to
No. 04-41450

-3-

the district court for correction of the judgment pursuant to

FED. R. CRIM. P. 36 to reflect that Ledesma was convicted of a

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for attempted illegal reentry, not

illegal reentry, into the United states after deportation.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
Case 3:98-cv-00434-RV-SMN Document 236 Filed 05/25/00 Page 1 of 1
skip to page content

|  glossary | map | contact  |
|----------------------------------------------------------|

National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Center on Sleep Disorders Research

Glossary    Map    Contact

|  |                                                                                                                                                        | Getting          StartedTechnical information regarding the    use of this Web site |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | Teacher's          GuideLesson plans and implementation support                                                                                       |
|  | Web          Portion of Student ActivitiesInteractive material for students                                                                           |
|  | About          NIH and NHLBIInformation on the National Institutes of            Healthand the National Heart, Lung, and Blood            Institute |

Office of Science Education HomeCurriculum   Supplements HomeCopyrightCreditsAccessibility
Case 4:02-cv-00408-WS-WCS   Document 151   Filed 09/15/06   Page 1 of 5

Case 4:02-cv-00408-WS-WCS   Document 151   Filed 09/15/06   Page 2 of 5

Case 4:02-cv-00408-WS-WCS   Document 151   Filed 09/15/06   Page 3 of 5

Case 4:02-cv-00408-WS-WCS   Document 151   Filed 09/15/06   Page 4 of 5

Case 4:02-cv-00408-WS-WCS   Document 151   Filed 09/15/06   Page 5 of 5
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2391 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2391

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 5323 Highway N in Cottleville, Missouri as the ``Lance Corporal 
                    Phillip Vinnedge Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 14, 2013

Mrs. Wagner (for herself, Mr. Clay, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. 
 Cleaver, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. Long, and Mr. Smith of Missouri) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 5323 Highway N in Cottleville, Missouri as the ``Lance Corporal 
                    Phillip Vinnedge Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL PHILLIP D. VINNEDGE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 5323 Highway N in Cottleville, Missouri, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any references in a law, map, regulation, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001014669
<NAME> STERLING CHEMICALS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,958
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,829
<INVENTORY>                                     87,870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               283,762
<PP&E>                                         742,426
<DEPRECIATION>                                 250,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 875,317
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,933
<BONDS>                                        768,870
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (175,587)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   875,317
<SALES>                                        908,787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               908,787
<CGS>                                          813,148
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  813,148
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,475
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,075)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,148)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,927)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,924)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,851)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Nathan Atkinson, Petitioner, v Barbara Blum, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review two determinations of the State Commissioner of Social Services, dated January 26, 1979 and May 3, 1979, respectively, which affirmed determinations of the local agency disqualifying petitioner from receiving public assistance in the category of home relief for periods of 30 and 60 days, respectively. Petition granted, determinations annulled, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondents are directed to reimburse petitioner for those periods of time during which he was improperly disqualified from receiving *551home relief. We find, on this record, that the State commissioner’s determinations are not supported by substantial evidence. The predicate for such a disqualification is a finding that an employable home relief recipient has refused and failed to report to proffered employment, and/or that the recipient has refused a concrete referral to available employment. In this matter, petitioner reported to a job interview on one occasion and to a referral to a job interview on a second occasion. In each instance, petitioner reacted negatively to the prospective employment, and expressed his belief that he would be unable to perform the required duties. However, petitioner neither refused an offer of employment, nor repudiated a referral to employment. Rather, the offer and referral were never made. We cannot agree with the State commissioner’s implicit assumption that an expressed negative attitude is tantamount to an outright refusal of available employment within the meaning of subdivision 5 of section 131 of the Social Services Law and 18 NYCRR 385.1 and petitioner is therefore entitled to continue receiving public assistance and to reimbursement for the periods involved. Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### § 301.89-7 Compliance agreements.

Persons who grow, handle, or move regulated articles may enter into a compliance agreement[1] if such persons review with an inspector each provision of the compliance agreement, have facilities and equipment to carry out disinfestation procedures or application of chemical materials in accordance with part 305 of this chapter, and meet applicable State training and certification standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 136b). Any person who enters into a compliance agreement with APHIS must agree to comply with the provisions of this subpart and any conditions imposed under this subpart.

[61 FR 52207, Oct. 4, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 23628, May 1, 1997; 69 FR 8096, Feb. 23, 2004; 75 FR 4241, Jan. 26, 2010; 75 FR 68945, Nov. 10, 2010; 87 FR 80017, Dec. 29, 2022]

###### Footnotes -
  301.89-7

[1] Compliance agreements may be initiated by contacting a local office of Plant Protection and Quarantine, which are listed in telephone directories. The addresses and telephone numbers of local offices of Plant Protection and Quarantine may also be obtained from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, Surveillance and Emergency Program Planning and Coordination, 4700 River Road Unit 98, Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1236.
98-1733.

#### State ex rel. Licking Cty. v. Licking Mem. Hosp.

In Mandamus. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus. On October 5,1998, respondent filed a motion for leave to file a reply to relators’ memorandum contra respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Whereas S.CtPrae.R. XI(4) prohibits a reply to a memorandum opposing a motion,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for leave to file a reply to relators’ memorandum contra respondent’s motion for judgment on the pleadings be, and hereby is, denied.
#### § 27.99 Values; expression.

For the purpose of this subpart values shall be expressed in terms of cents and hundredths of a cent. A fraction of a hundredth, when equal to, or greater than, the half thereof, shall be treated as a hundredth, and when less than a half of a hundredth shall be disregarded.

[22 FR 10923, Dec. 28, 1957; 30 FR 7239, May 29, 1965. Redesignated at 53 FR 29328, Aug. 4, 1988]
Exhibit
      32.1





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      ss.1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Datascension Inc. (the "Company")on
      Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date therein specified (the
      "Report")"Report"), I, D. Scott Kincer, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      the
      best of my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/
                D. Scott KincerDAVID
                SCOTT KINCER
              CEO
                and Prin. Executive OfficerDated:
                August 7, 2008
§ 330.205 Hand-carry of plant pests, biological control organisms, and soil. Plant pests, biological control organisms, and soil may be hand-carried into the United States only in accordance with the provisions of this section. ( a ) *Authorization to hand-carry* — ( 1 ) *Application for a permit; specification of “hand-carry” as proposed method of movement.* A person must apply for an import permit for the plant pest, biological control organism, or soil, in accordance with § 330.201, and specify hand-carry of the organism or article as the method of proposed movement.
( 2 ) *Specification of individual who will hand-carry.* The application must also specify the individual or individuals who will hand-carry the plant pest, biological control organism, or soil into the United States. If APHIS authorizes this individual or these individuals to hand-carry, the authorization may not be transferred to nor actions under it performed by individuals other than those identified on the permit application.
( b ) *Notification of intent to hand-carry.* After the permittee has obtained an import permit but no less than 20 days prior to movement, the permittee must provide APHIS through APHIS' online portal for permit applications or by fax with the names of the designated hand carrier, or carriers, assigned to that movement. Additional conditions for hand-carry are available on the APHIS website.[3]
( c ) *Denial, amendment, or cancellation of authorization to hand-carry.* APHIS may deny a request to hand-carry, or amend or cancel any hand-carry authorization at any time, if it deems such action necessary to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests or noxious weeds within the United States.
( d ) *Appeal of denial, amendment, or cancellation.* Any person whose request to hand-carry has been denied, or whose authorization to hand-carry has been amended or canceled, may appeal the decision in writing to APHIS.
Footnotes -
330.205
[3] *https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/permits/organism/downloads/HandCarryPolicy.pdf .*
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2370 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2370

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 reauthorize the juvenile accountability block grants program through 
                           fiscal year 2016.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 13, 2013

Mr. Scott of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
 reauthorize the juvenile accountability block grants program through 
                           fiscal year 2016.

    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 ``Juvenile Accountability Block Grants 
Program Reauthorization Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF JUVENILE ACCOUNTABILITY BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM 
              THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2016.

    Part R of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ee et seq.) is amended--
            (1) in section 1801A(a), by striking ``section 1810(b)'' 
        and inserting ``section 1810(c)'';
            (2) in section 1810(a), by inserting ``and each of the 
        fiscal years 2014 through 2016'' after ``2009''; and
            (3) in section 1810(b), by inserting ``and each of the 
        fiscal years 2014 through 2016'' after ``2004''.
                                 <all>
```
1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RICHARD ARROWSMITH,

LIQUIDATING TRUSTEE OF

THE HDL LIQUIDATING TRUST,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:19mc14-MW/CAS

ADAM P. MOORE,

Defendant.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 14. Upon consideration, no objection having 

been filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “The unopposed Motion for Final 

Judgment, ECF No. 12, is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter 
2

judgment against Garnishee and Garnishee must surrender $14,904.77 to Plaintiff.”

The Clerk shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on February 28, 2020.

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge