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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations
     and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such schedules.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                         254,814
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               538,743
<PP&E>                                         11,352,021
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5,157,650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,965,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          428,067
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,984,487
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,965,287
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               581,120
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  537,670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,449)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                45,899
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            45,899
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   45,899
<EPS-BASIC>                                    2.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  2.71



</TABLE>
```

Exhibit 99.1

                             **CERTIFICATION OF 10KSB**

I, Douglas Larson of Eldorado Artesian Springs,  Inc. (the "Company"),  certify,
pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  18 U.S.C.  Section
1350 that:

     (1)  The Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of the  Company  for the year ended
          March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of
          Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (15
          U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Douglas Larson

Dated:  June 30, 2003
```
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JANE DOE, e lde rly , disa ble d wom an, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF POR TLAND, a

public m unic ipa l c orporation, DB A Hom e Forward; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 15-35246 D.C . No. 3:13-c v-01974-SI M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 24, 2016 * * B e fore : LEAVY, FER NANDEZ, a

nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s. Ja ne Doe a p p e a ls pro se from

the distric t

c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in he r a c tion a lle ging va

rious c l a im s, inc luding tha t de fe nda nts fa ile d to a c c om

m o date he r disa bility in viola tion of theFa i r Housing Am e ndm e nts Ac t (“ FHAA” ). W e 

# FIL ED MAR 03 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo. Budnic k v . Tow n of C are fre e , 518 F.3d 1109, 1113 (9th C i r. 2008). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on Doe ’ s FHAA a nd R e ha bilita tion Ac t (“ R

A” ) c la im s be c a

use Doe fa ile d to ra ise a

ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r he r re que ste d a c c om m odations we re re a sona

ble , or ne c e ssa ry for the e qua l use and e njoy m e nt of he r a

pa rtm e nt. Se e id . at 1119 (e le m e nts of a

fa ilure -to-a c c om

m odate c la i m

unde r the FHAA); Gie b e le r v . M& B Assoc s . , 343 F.3d 1143, 1148-49, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (for purpose s of the FHAA and R A, a n a c c om m odat ion is re a sona

ble “ whe n it im

p ose s no funda

m e nta l a lte ration in the

nature of the program

or undue fina

nc ia l or a dm inistra

tive burde n s” (c ita

t ion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d); s e e also 24 C . F.R . §§ 982.405(a), 982.551(d) (re quiring tha t public housing age nc ie s inspe c t units a t le a st a nnua lly and tha t Se c tion 8 vouc he r re c ipie nts a llow suc h inspe c tions). W e re je c t a s unsupporte d by

the re c ord Doe ’ s c onte ntion tha t de fe nda nts fa ile d to c onduc t a n inte ra c tive proc e ss. C ontra ry to Doe ’ s c o nte ntion, thedistric t c ourt provide d he r a fina l wa rning of he r de a dline to file an opposition to de fe nda nts’ m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt. W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a

rgum e nts a

n d a lle g ations ra ise d for the first tim e on 1 5 - 3 5 2 4 6 2a

ppe a l. Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009). Doe ’ s re que st to supplem e nt the re c ord, se t forth in he r ope ning brie f, is de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 5 - 3 5 2 4 6 3
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00240

- CR

P AUL S PENCER J R

. , Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from Criminal District

Court No. 2

of Tarrant County ( 1588781D )

November 23, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice

Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. VAN GAASBECK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

September 18, 1906.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Cornell Van Gaasbeck.

No opinion. Motion denied.
# 19.1407 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**Subpart 19.14 - Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Procurement Program
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           10691044
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                 0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                   0
<EQUITIES>                                         2625
<MORTGAGE>                                            0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                         0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 10693669
<CASH>                                          1786500
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                40051
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           332942
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14660220
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 4453904
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              234034
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  3405998
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                            208236
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         466239
<OTHER-SE>                                      4405712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14232294
<PREMIUMS>                                      8701580
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              202056
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 1220
<OTHER-INCOME>                                        0
<BENEFITS>                                      5789745
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                       19244
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            1047011
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  370651
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              370651
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     370651
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                  2729175
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                   0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                     0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              3624715
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                1850578
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                 3003175
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                          374417



</TABLE>
[873 NE2d 267, 841 NYS2d 223]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Duane J. Charache, Appellant.

Argued June 5, 2007;

decided June 27, 2007

*830APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Gary A. Horton, Public Defender,*Batavia *(Bridget L. Field*of counsel), for appellant.

*Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney,*Batavia *(William G. Zickl*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count each of first degree unlawful dealing with a child, first degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. In anticipation of his release from prison, the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders (Board) filed a Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI) that assessed defendant 125 points—a presumptive level three sex offender classification. The Board, however, recommended a downward departure to a level two because defendant completed high school and had no prior criminal history.

County Court agreed with defendant’s sole challenge to the RAI scoring—that 10 points should be deducted under category IV (release environment) because he was to be released with supervision. Thereafter, the People opposed the Board’s downward departure recommendation. The court agreed with the People’s conclusion that the Board’s rationale for departure had “little or no import” on defendant’s actual risk as reflected in the RAI. Thus, the court adhered to a level three classification based on the adjusted 115 points.

On appeal, defendant argued, for the first time, that the People failed to provide him with the statutory 10-day notice of their intent to seek a risk level classification different from the Board’s recommendation *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]). We agree with the Appellate Division, however, that defendant failed to preserve this contention for review, contrary to the holdings of *People v Davila*(299 AD2d 573 [3d Dept 2002]) and *People v MacNeil*(283 AD2d 835 [3d Dept 2001]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

*831Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         17,289,611
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,066,012
<ALLOWANCES>                                   453,824
<INVENTORY>                                    2,269,174
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               21,477,505
<PP&E>                                         4,312,351
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,816,863
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 26,503,951
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,206,901
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       215,200
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,988,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   26,503,951
<SALES>                                        1,530,561
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,530,561
<CGS>                                          1,860,935
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,860,935
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,712,328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               59,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             47,716
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                22,227,738
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            22,227,738
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0           
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0           
<CHANGES>                                      0 
<NET-INCOME>                                   22,227,738  
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.04        
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.03
                                               

</TABLE>
Case 1:20-cr-00011-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:20-cr-00011-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:20-cr-00011-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:20-cr-00011-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:20-cr-00011-AW-GRJ Document 1 Filed 06/24/20 Page 5 of 5
# L_2021141EN.01000101.xml

| 26.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 141/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 141/1

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/667

of 23 April 2021

implementing Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/44 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/44 of 18 January 2016 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 (1), and in particular Article 21(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 18 January 2016, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) 2016/44. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 18 January 2016, the Council adopted Regulation (EU) 2016/44.

| (2) | The entry for one person should be deleted as he is deceased. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The entry for one person should be deleted as he is deceased.

| (3) | Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2016/44 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2016/44 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex III to Regulation (EU) 2016/44 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 April 2021.

For the Council

The President

A. P. ZACARIAS

---

(1)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2016, p. 1.

1

---

ANNEX

In Regulation (EU) 2016/44, Annex III (List of natural and legal persons, entities or bodies referred to in Article 6(2)), Part A (Persons), entry 9 (concerning AL-GAOUD, Abdelmajid) is deleted.

---
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER JON PERGROSSI,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:20cv187-MW/GRJ

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

AGAINST RACISM,

Defendant.

_________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Order to Show Cause and Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 4, and has also 

reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 ECF 

No. 6.

Plaintiff filed 33 cases over a four-day period, from August 17 through August 

20, 2020. These cases were assigned to three U. S. District Judges in the Northern 

District of Florida. The cases are frivolous. Understandably, the Magistrate Judge 

1 Plaintiff filed a document in Case No. 1:20cv181-MW/GRJ, ECF No. 6, which this Court has 

construed as an omnibus response to the Order to Show Cause and as objections to the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones, ECF No. 4.

Case 1:20-cv-00187-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 1 of 2
2

found this extraordinary volume of frivolous cases merits the imposition of 

restrictions on future filings in order to preserve scarce judicial resources and protect 

the efficient administration of justice. While a close call, this Court will not restrict 

future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the process. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted in part, over 

Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, 

“This case is DISMISSED without leave to amend as frivolous and/or for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

No restrictions are imposed on future filings unless Plaintiff continues to abuse the 

judicial process.” The Clerk shall also close the file. 

SO ORDERED on September 23, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00187-MW-GRJ Document 6 Filed 09/23/20 Page 2 of 2
§ 3430.706 Matching requirements. ( a ) *Requirement for Research and/or Development Projects.* The non-Federal share of the cost of a research or development project under BRDI shall be not less than 20 percent. NIFA may reduce the non-Federal share of a research or development project if the reduction is determined to be necessary and appropriate.
( b ) *Requirement for Demonstration and Commercial Projects.* The non-Federal share of the cost of a demonstration or commercial project under BRDI shall be not less than 50 percent.
( c ) *Indirect costs.* Use of indirect costs as in-kind matching contributions is subject to § 3430.52 of this part.
[75 FR 33498, June 14, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 38549, July 1, 2011]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND UNASSIGNED
DEFICIT  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO  SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     1,378,132,743
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                 124,345,253
<MORTGAGE>                                 478,189,442
<REAL-ESTATE>                               24,681,406
<TOTAL-INVEST>                           2,005,348,844
<CASH>                                     250,254,477
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           1,116,133
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          11,185,852,940
<POLICY-LOSSES>                          2,128,477,238
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                       29,388,323
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,500,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 426,044,593
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            11,185,852,940
<PREMIUMS>                                 704,858,777
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                        128,135,280
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                           (467,070)
<OTHER-INCOME>                             367,450,906
<BENEFITS>                                 887,552,701
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                          0
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             56,940,710
<INCOME-TAX>                                19,691,757
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                37,248,953
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0



</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

#### § 4290.1710 Agency's authority to collect or compromise claims.

The Agency may, upon such conditions and for such consideration as it deems reasonable, collect or compromise all claims relating to obligations it holds or has guaranteed, and all legal or equitable rights accruing to it.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:02-cr-00043-MP-AK

DEMETRIUS GERMAINE KENNEDY,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 493, Defendant’s motion requesting a copy of the

United States Sentencing Guidelines worksheet used to tally his total offense level. Defendant

filed the motion on March 23, 2009. However, Defendant has already filed a notice of appeal of

this Court’s January 27, 2009, order denying his motion to reduce sentence. Because that appeal

has not yet been resolved, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the requested relief. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion at Doc. 493 is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of April, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:02-cr-00043-MP-GRJ Document 498 Filed 04/02/09 Page 1 of 1