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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Registrant's December 31, 1999 Form 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,356,844
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,127,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                   186,998
<INVENTORY>                                    272,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,846,777
<PP&E>                                      31,402,727
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,242,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,260,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,416,229
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,592
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,059,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,260,764
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,857,384
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,614,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,416,203
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,292,121
<INCOME-TAX>                                   959,129
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,332,992
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,212,477
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26


</TABLE>
#### § 51.2758 Split.

*Split* means the separated half of a peanut kernel.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2526 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty with respect to Ethoprop. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 5, 2006 

Mr. TALENT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty with respect 

to Ethoprop. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ETHOPROP. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.01.83 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Ethoprop) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and in7 serting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

8 (b) Effective Date.—the amendment made by sub9 section (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 2526 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph A. Podbielski, Appellant, v. Walter M. Wallack, as Warden of Wallkill Prison, Respondent

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from judgment entered in Supreme Court, Ulster County, on April 26, 1966, dismissing writ of habeas corpus, dismissed as academic, without costs, appellant having been resenteneed by the County Court of Schenectady County on February 3, 1967. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in memorandum decision by Reynolds, J.
36.516 Quantity surveys.

The contracting officer may insert the clause at 52.236-16, Quantity Surveys, in solicitations and

contracts when a fixed-price construction contract providing for unit pricing of items and for

payment based on quantity surveys is contemplated. If it is determined at a level above that of the

contracting officer that it is impracticable for Government personnel to perform the original and

final surveys, and the Government wishes the contractor to perform these surveys, the clause shall

be used with its Alternate.

Parent topic: Subpart 36.5 - Contract Clauses
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Grant, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on May 9, 1978, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Birns, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Lupiano and Lynch, JJ.
#### § 51.24 When appeal inspection may be requested.

An application for appeal inspection may be made by any financially interested person who is dissatisfied with the results of an inspection as stated in an inspection certificate, if the lot can be positively identified by the Inspection Service as the lot which was previously inspected.
161 So.2d 276

#### GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY v. Minnie P. E. JONES.

No. 47135.

March 11, 1964.

In re: Mrs. Minnie P. E. Jones applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 159 So.2d 574.

Writ refused. We find no error in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
32.706-3 Clause for unenforceability of

unauthorized obligations.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.232-39, Unenforceability of Unauthorized

Obligations in all solicitations and contracts.

Parent topic: 32.706 Contract clauses.
#### § 52.23 When appeal inspection may be requested.

An application for an appeal inspection may be made by any interested party who is dissatisfied with the results of an inspection as stated in an inspection certificate, if the lot of processed products can be positively identified by the inspection service as the lot from which officially drawn samples were previously inspected. Such application shall be made within thirty (30) days following the day on which the previous inspection was performed, except upon approval by the Administrator the time within which an application for appeal inspection may be made may be extended.
44.204 Contract clauses.

(a)

(1) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.244-2, Subcontracts, in solicitations and

contracts when contemplating-

(i) A cost-reimbursement contract;

(ii) A letter contract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold;

(iii) A fixed-price contract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold under which unpriced

contract actions (including unpriced modifications or unpriced delivery orders) are anticipated;

(iv) A time-and-materials contract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold; or

(v) A labor-hour contract that exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold.

(2) If a cost-reimbursement contract is contemplated, for civilian agencies other than the Coast

Guard and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the contracting officer shall use the

clause with its Alternate I.

(3) Use of this clause is not required in-

(i) Fixed-price architect-engineer contracts; or

(ii) Contracts for mortuary services, refuse services, or shipment and storage of personal property,

when an agency-prescribed clause on approval of subcontractors’ facilities is required.

(b) The contracting officer may insert the clause at 52.244-4, Subcontractors and Outside Associates

and Consultants (Architect-Engineer Services), in architect-engineer contracts.

(c) The contracting officer shall, when contracting by negotiation, insert the clause at 52.244-5,

Competition in Subcontracting, in solicitations and contracts when the contract amount is expected

to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, unless-

(1) A firm-fixed-price contract, awarded on the basis of adequate price competition or whose prices

are set by law or regulation, is contemplated; or

(2) A time-and-materials, labor-hour, or architect-engineer contract is contemplated.

Parent topic: Subpart 44.2 - Consent to Subcontracts
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER TO R EINSTATE

Appellate case name: Bernice Yost Special Conservator for Georgia Cox v. James Fails

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 0077 3

- CV

Trial court case number: 412,338

Trial court: Probate Court No. 3 of Harris County

The supplemental clerk’s record that complies with our Order of Abatement has been

filed with the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, we order the appeal reinstated

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Hudd le

Acting individually

Date: November 8 , 2016
Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 123 Filed 01/23/03 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 123 Filed 01/23/03 Page 2 of 12
Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 123 Filed 01/23/03 Page 3 of 12
Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 123 Filed 01/23/03 Page 4 of 12
Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 123 Filed 01/23/03 Page 5 of 12
Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 123 Filed 01/23/03 Page 6 of 12
Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 123 Filed 01/23/03 Page 7 of 12
Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 123 Filed 01/23/03 Page 8 of 12
Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 123 Filed 01/23/03 Page 9 of 12
Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 123 Filed 01/23/03 Page 10 of 12
Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 123 Filed 01/23/03 Page 11 of 12
Case 1:00-cv-00210-MP-AK Document 123 Filed 01/23/03 Page 12 of 12
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 248 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to permit States to carry out surface 

transportation program projects on local roads to address safety concerns. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2005 

Mr. DEMINT introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to permit States 

to carry out surface transportation program projects on 

local roads to address safety concerns. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Surface Transpor5 tation Adaptability to Ensure Safety (STATES) Act of 

6 2005’’. 

7 SEC. 2. LOCATION OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PRO8 GRAM PROJECTS. 

9 Section 133(c) of title 23, United States Code, is 

10 amended— 
2 

•S 248 IS 

1 (1) by striking ‘‘Except’’ and inserting the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(2) SAFETY PROJECTS.—Notwithstanding 

6 paragraph (1), a State may undertake a surface 

7 transportation program project on any State-main8 tained public road, including a road functionally 

9 classified as a local or rural minor collector, if the 

10 State determines that the project is necessary to ad11 dress high fatality rates or other safety concerns.’’. 

Æ
# 28.103-4 Contract clause.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert a clause substantially the same as the clause at 52.228-16, Performance and Payment *Bonds*-Other than *Construction*, in *solicitations* and contracts that contain a requirement for both payment and performance *bonds*. The *contracting officer**shall* determine the amount of each *bond* for insertion in the clause. The amount *shall* be adequate to protect the interest of the Government. The *contracting officer**shall* also set a period of time (normally 10 days) for return of executed *bonds*. AlternateI *shall* be used when only performance *bonds* are required.

**Parent topic:**28.103 Performance and payment bonds for other than construction contracts.
Page 1 of 1

1

Cf. Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083 (11TH Cir. 1997) (district courts must treat notices of

appeal in Section 2255 actions as applications for certificates of appealability).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs. Case No: 5:94CR5004/LAC

 

ALPHONSE GAINER

ORDER

The defendant has filed a notice of appeal (doc. 118) which this court construes as

a request for a certificate of appealability.1 Unless a certificate of appealability is issued,

the defendant may not take an appeal from the final order denying Rule 60(b) relief.

Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of Corrections, 317 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th Cir. 2003).

A COA should not issue in the appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas

case unless the petitioner shows, at a minimum, that it is debatable among jurists of

reason whether the district court abused its discretion. Gonzalez, supra, citing Mobley v.

Head, 306 F.3d 1096, 1097 (11th Cir. 2002) (“This Court reviews a denial of a 60(b) motion

for an abuse of discretion.”). Defendant has not made such a showing, and therefore, his

request for a certificate of appealability is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of April, 2006.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:94-cr-05004-LC-MD Document 136 Filed 04/05/06 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Sparber, Appellant.

Submitted September 4, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 34 AD3d 265.

*896Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
37.110 Solicitation provisions and contract

clauses.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert the provision at 52.237-1, Site Visit, in solicitations for

services to be performed on Government installations, unless the solicitation is for construction.

(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.237-2, Protection of Government Buildings,

Equipment, and Vegetation, in solicitations and contracts for services to be performed on

Government installations, unless a construction contract is contemplated.

(c) The contracting officer may insert the clause at 52.237-3, Continuity of Services, in solicitations

and contracts for services, when-

(1) The services under the contract are considered vital to the Government and must be continued

without interruption and when, upon contract expiration, a successor, either the Government or

another contractor, may continue them; and

(2) The Government anticipates difficulties during the transition from one contractor to another or to

the Government. Examples of instances where use of the clause may be appropriate are services in

remote locations or services requiring personnel with special security clearances.

(d) See 9.508 regarding the use of an appropriate provision and clause concerning the subject of

conflict-of-interest, which may at times be significant in solicitations and contracts for services.

(e) The contracting officer shall also insert in solicitations and contracts for services the provisions

and clauses prescribed elsewhere in 48 CFR Chapter 1, as appropriate for each acquisition,

depending on the conditions that are applicable.

Parent topic: Subpart 37.1 - Service Contracts-General
#### § 318.47-4 Shipments by the Department of Agriculture.

Cotton may be moved by the Department of Agriculture for experimental or scientific purposes under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Deputy Administrator of the Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs, which conditions may include clearance through the New Crops Research Branch of the Plant Science Research Division, Agricultural Research Service.
§ 46.35 Suspension or revocation order. ( a ) Whenever the Secretary shall order the suspension or revocation of a license, the person against whom such order is directed shall be served by the Hearing Clerk with a copy of the order, and be notified of the effective date thereof. Service of orders shall be accomplished in accordance with § 47.4 of this chapter.
( b ) Except in the case of any license automatically suspended by the Act, a reasonable time shall be allowed, which shall not be less than 10 days between the date of issuance of the order of suspension or revocation and the date upon which such order becomes effective, during which period the licensee may make all necessary arrangements with some other person, who has a valid and effective license to safeguard the interests of consignors or other innocent parties whose property or business may be affected by such suspension or revocation and during which the licensee may terminate his affairs and business relating to the handling of produce.
( c ) After the revocation of his license or during the effective period of any suspension thereof, no person shall, either directly or indirectly, through any agent, employee, or otherwise, carry on the business of a commission merchant, dealer, or broker until his status as a licensee has been restored.
( d ) The suspension or revocation of a license shall not prevent the licensee from collecting amounts due on contracts entered into prior to the date of suspension or revocation or from remitting promptly to his principals and obligees.
§ 5001.9 Standards for financial information. ( a ) All financial information (*e.g.,* financial statements, balance sheets, financial projections, and income statements) must be prepared and submitted in accordance with accounting practices acceptable to the Agency. Such practices can include, but are not limited to, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the industry's standard accounting practice.
( b ) For sole proprietorships and other situations where business assets are held personally, financial statements must be prepared using only the assets and liabilities directly attributable to the applicant's project. Assets, plus any improvements, must be valued at the lower of cost or market value.
#### § 51.626 U.S. No. 2 Russet.

The requirements for this grade are the same as for U.S. No. 2 except that at least 10 percent of the fruit shall have more than two-thirds of their surface, in the aggregate, affected by any type of discoloration. For tolerances see § 51.628.

[85 FR 68423, Oct. 29, 2020]
36.602-1 Selection criteria.

(a) Agencies shall evaluate each potential contractor in terms of its-

(1) Professional qualifications necessary for satisfactory performance of required services;

(2) Specialized experience and technical competence in the type of work required, including, where

appropriate, experience in energy conservation, pollution prevention, waste reduction, and the use

of recovered materials;

(3) Capacity to accomplish the work in the required time;

(4) Past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry in terms of cost

control, quality of work, and compliance with performance schedules;

(5) Location in the general geographical area of the project and knowledge of the locality of the

project; provided, that application of this criterion leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms,

given the nature and size of the project; and

(6) Acceptability under other appropriate evaluation criteria.

(b) When the use of design competition is approved by the agency head or a designee, agencies may

evaluate firms on the basis of their conceptual design of the project. Design competition may be

used when-

(1) Unique situations exist involving prestige projects, such as the design of memorials and

structures of unusual national significance;

(2) Sufficient time is available for the production and evaluation of conceptual designs; and

(3) The design competition, with its costs, will substantially benefit the project.

(c) Hold discussions with at least three of the most highly qualified firms regarding concepts, the

relative utility of alternative methods and feasible ways to prescribe the use of recovered materials

and achieve waste reduction and energy-efficiency in facility design (see part 23).

Parent topic: 36.602 Selection of firms for architect-engineer contracts.
§ 54.4 Kind of service. ( a ) Grading Service consists of the determination, certification, and identification of the class, grade, or other quality attributes of products under applicable official standards.
( b ) Certification Service consists of the determination, certification, and identification of products to an approved specification. Determination of product compliance with specifications for ingredient content or method of preparation may be based upon information received from the inspection system having jurisdiction over the products involved.
( c ) Carcass Data Service consists of the evaluation of carcass characteristics of animals identified with an approved ear tag to applicable official standards or specifications, and the recording and transmitting of the associated data to the applicant or a party designated by the applicant.
[84 FR 48555, Sept. 16, 2019]
Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:00cr15 – SPM 

WILLIAM H. BLACK,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SENTENCE

This cause comes before the Court on the disclosures submitted by

Defendant William H. Black, which will be filed under seal and treated as a

motion for reconsideration of sentence.

Defendant’s disclosures fail to provide an accounting that explains why the

settlement funds were transferred, how they were spent, and how much, if any,

remain available to Defendant. According to Defendant’s disclosures, he did not

receive any of the settlement funds from PMI’s lawsuit, aside from $88,819.67

that was eventually transferred to a First Tennessee Bank trust account

controlled by him. No explanation is provided for why Defendant received so

little.
Page 2 of 3

Defendant’s disclosures show that $1.5 million in settlement funds were

paid to Defendant’s wife, Carla Harris Black. No explanation is provided to show

that Carla Harris Black in fact legitimately received these funds. According to

Carla Harris Black’s bankruptcy deposition testimony (doc. 1346-7, at pp.5,16-

21) Defendant controlled $700,000.00 in settlement funds that was placed in the

Dupri Funding account, he disbursed the money to many different places, and

she received approximately $180,000.00, which was used as a down payment on

a house.

Defendant’s disclosures also show that $807,000 in settlement funds was

transferred to The Law Funder. No explanation is given for this transfer and how

any advance received by The Law Funder was spent.

The other transfers on Defendant’s disclosures are likewise unaccounted

for. Defendant’s disclosures show that he received loans or gifts from five

companies and 20 people, many of whom received settlement proceeds

(Reaching New Heights, Professional Management Inc.,Carla Harris Black,

Shayla Black, Robert Bragdon, and Michael Brobeck). No details are provided

as to how much Defendant received and why. 

The disclosures submitted by Defendant fail to provide a complete

accounting of the settlement funds and Defendant’s assets. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 

1. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (doc. 1369) is denied. 

Case No.: 1:00cr15 – SPM 
Page 3 of 3

2. The denial is without prejudice to Defendant’s opportunity to file a

new motion for reconsideration on or before September 6, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of September, 2011.

s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

Case No.: 1:00cr15 – SPM