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

<ARTICLE>           5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             471
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      846
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   223
<PP&E>                                           10431
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    9451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              884
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        1658
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      9451
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1347
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   917
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 527
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       467
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### §§ 4280.324-4280.399 [Reserved]
#### § 51.349 Overripe.

*Overripe* means apples which are dead ripe, and with flesh very mealy or soft.
### NUMBER 13 - 14 - 00 552 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS , RICHARD FREYMANN , SAM FLEMING, SILVIA GARZA, AND EVELYN DONALSON

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1
Relator s , State Farm Lloyds , Richard Freymann, Sam Fleming, Sylvia Garza, and Evelyn Donalson, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that this Court direct respondent, the Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna, Presiding Judge of the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, to withdraw her order denying relators ’ verified plea in abatement and to enter an order abating the suit for damages broug ht agai nst relator s by the real part ies in i nterest, Silvestre Gonzales and Norma Gonzales, u ntil sixty

1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).2

days after t he y provide relator s with a notice letter for their claim stating the specific, separate amounts for the claimed damages and attorney’s fees

. See T EX

. I NS

. C ODE A NN . § 541.154 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Prior Notice of Action”); id. § 541.155 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Abatement”); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.1 (“Commencement” of Original Proceedings). In addition, relator s request that this Court issue immediate temporary relief staying respondent’s order denying the plea in abatement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10 (“Temporary Relief”).
T he Court, having examined and fully considered th e petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that th e petition for writ of mandamus should be denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re State Farm Lloyds, Richard Freymann, and Nathan Burris , No . 13

- 14

- 00347

- CV, 2014 WL 4243701 , at ** 4

– 9 (Tex. App.

— Co rpus Christi Aug. 27, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op ). Accordingly, the Court DENIES the petit ion for writ of mandamus and request for immediate temporary relief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.8( d ).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 26 th day of September, 2014.
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Ronald D. Ordway, certify that:

1.     Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Video Display Corporation;

 

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

 

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

 

4.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s othercertifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a)     all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)    anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financialreporting.
| Date:  | October 12, 2006               |   | /s/ Ronald D. Ordway |   |
|--------|--------------------------------|--------|----------------------|--------|
|   |  Ronald D.  Ordway        |
|   |  Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit No. 03-1204 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. JOHN BRENNICK, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA The opinion of this Court, issued on July 29, 2003, should be amended as follows. On page 8, line 6 of 2nd full paragraph, delete ", 1154".
#### § 2500.106 Funding restrictions.

Funds made available under this subpart shall not be used for the construction of a new building or facility or the acquisition, expansion, remodeling, or alteration of an existing facility (including site grading and improvement, and architect fees).
#### § 56.11 Financial interest of graders.

Graders shall not render service on any product in which they are financially interested.

[71 FR 42008, July 24, 2006]
47.303-10 F.o.b. inland carrier, point of exportation.       (a)                   *Explanation of delivery term.*"F.o.b. inland carrier, point of exportation" means free of expense to the Government, on board the conveyance of the inland carrier, delivered to the specified point of exportation.                                          (b)                   *Contractor responsibilities.* The contractor shall-                                                         (1)                                                                           (i) 										                    Pack and mark the shipment to comply with contract specifications; or                                                                              (ii) 										                    In the absence of specifications, prepare the shipment for ocean transportation in conformance with carrier requirements to protect the goods and to ensure assessment of the lowest applicable transportation charge;                                                                                                           (2) 								                Prepare and distribute commercial bills of lading;                                                            (3)                                                                           (i) 										                    Deliver the shipment in good order and condition in or on the conveyance of the carrier on the date or within the period specified; and                                                                              (ii) 										                    Pay and bear all applicable charges, including transportation costs, to the point of delivery specified in the contract;                                                                                                           (4) 								                Be responsible for any loss of and/or damage to the goods occurring before delivery of the shipment to the point of delivery specified in the contract; and                                                            (5) 								                At the Government’s request and expense, assist in obtaining the documents required for-                                                                           (i) 										                    Exportation; or                                                                              (ii) 										                    Importation at destination.                                                                                                                            (c)                   *Contract clause.* The contracting officer shall insert in solicitations and contracts the clause at 52.247-38, F.o.b. Inland Carrier, Point of Exportation, when the delivery term is f.o.b. inland carrier, point of exportation.    **Parent topic:** 47.303 Standard delivery terms and contract clauses.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 1:98-cr-00019-MMP

ROBERT PETRIE,

Defendant.

 /

ORDER EXONERATING CORPORATE SURETY

This matter is before the Court on Government’s Motion to Exonerate Corporate Surety. 

It is hereby,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

That the corporate surety bond posted by American Bankers Insurance Company of

Florida posted in the Southern District of Florida for the Defendant on or about September 7,

1998 in the amount of $50,000.00 and transferred to this Court, is exonerated conditioned on the

Surety’s compliance with this Court’s Order of Forfeiture entered in Case No. 

1:04cv00073-MMP-AK.

DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of October, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:98-cr-00019-MP-AK Document 1451 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 1
The HONORABLE JOHN D. KELLY died on October 21, 1998, bef ore a draft * of this opinion was circulated. The opinion is consistent with the views Judge Kelly expressed during the panel’s conference followi ng submission on September 24, 1998. The HONORABLE JOSEPH E. STEVENS, JR., United States District Judge 1 for the Western District of Missouri.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1668

___________ John J. Farrell, * * Plaintiff - Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of * Western District of Missouri. Health & Human Services, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: September 24, 1998 Filed: November 13, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, LOKEN and KELLY, Circuit Judges. *

___________ PER CURIAM. John J. Farrell appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing 1 Farrell’s claim that the United States Department of Health and Hu man Services (HHS)-2-

discrimi nated against him on the basis of his disabilities in violation of th e Rehabi litation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Farrell was employed by HHS as a Children a nd Family Program Specialist, serving as the principal expert and technical reso urce for the State of Iowa regarding federal laws, regulations, and policie s concerning child support. In January 1990, Farrell suffered a heart attack, resulting in brain damage from oxygen d eprivation that left him with visual, speech, and cognitive impairments. After heart surgery and exte nsive rehabilitation, Farrell returned to work fu ll-time in May 1992. In November 1992, his supervisor identified performanc e deficiencies and provided Farrell with a performance improvement plan. At year end, the supervisor rated Farrell’s performance “unacceptable” in three critical elements and “marginally successful” in two others. He was terminated on March 26, 1993.
The district court conclud ed that Farrell failed to establish a prima facie case of a Rehabilitation Act viol ation because he could not refute HHS’s substantial evidence that his cognit

ive impairments were so severe that no accommodations, reasonable or otherwise, would have made him qualified to perform the essential functions of his job. On appeal, Farrell argues the district court erred in granting summary j udgment because Farrell made a facial showing that a reasonable accommodation was possible through the reports of a neurologis t and his ergonomics expert and the deposition testimony of Farrell and his wife. After careful review of the record, we agree with the district court that this evidence was speculative and did not overcome the government’ s overwhel ming evidence that Farrell’s brain damage left him without the cognitiv e abili ty to perform his analytical and consultative job duties, with or with accommodation. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
52.209-8 [Reserved]

Parent topic: 52.209 [Reserved]
§ 51.1902 U.S. Grade B. U.S. Grade B shall consist of tomatoes of similar varietal characteristics which are mature and are at least turning (see § 51.1904), but are not overripe or soft and not badly misshapen; which are free from soft rot, freezing injury and from serious damage caused by dirt, bruises, cuts, shriveling, sunscald, sunburn, puffiness, catfaces, growth cracks, scars, dry rot, other diseases, insects hail, or mechanical or other means Tomatoes on the shown face shall be reasonably representative in size and quality of the contents of the container. (See § 51.1903.) ( a ) Incident to proper grading and handling, except for maturity, not more than 5 percent, by count, of the tomatoes in any lot may fail to meet the requirements of the grade, including not more than 1 percent for tomatoes which are affected by soft rot.
§ 51.901 Damage. *Damage* means any specific defect described in this section; or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these defects, or any other defect, or any combination of defects which materially detracts from the appearance, or the edible or marketing quality of the individual berry, the appearance of the bunch as a whole, or the marketing quality of the stems. ( a ) The following shall be considered as damage to the individual berry: ( 1 ) Scarring such as that caused by thrips, mildew, rubs, and similar injuries when materially detracting from the appearance of the berry;
( 2 ) Discoloration when any light brown, tan, or darker discoloration of the skin materially detracts from the appearance of the berry: *Provided,* That “sunkissed” berries of the white Malaga variety which show discoloration of amber or light brown color shall not be considered as damaged. “Buckskin” berries of the Tokay variety, and similar injury to other varieties, shall be considered as damaged by discoloration;
( 3 ) Heat when the flesh of the berry is affected;
( 4 ) Almeria Spot when any spot is distinctly sunken or dark in color;
( 5 ) Mildew when active powdery mildew is present;
( 6 ) Freezing when the berry is frozen or when the flesh of the berry is affected by freezing;
( 7 ) Insect injury when penetrating the skin of the berry or when there is noticeable insect infestation on the bunch; when mealybug residue or aphis honeydew are present in noticeable amounts; or when leafhopper residue materially detracts from the appearance of the individual berry or of the bunch.
( b ) The following shall be considered as damage to stems: ( 1 ) Active powdery mildew or any other disease when present on the stems to the extent that it detracts from the appearance of the bunch or when scars caused by mildew or other disease constrict or weaken any part of the main or lateral stems; and,
( 2 ) Freezing when the stems are frozen or the capstems are swollen or dried, or when the main or lateral stems are water-soaked and limp, or dried, as a result of freezing.
[36 FR 9126, May 20, 1971. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981. Redesignated at 56 FR 15802, Apr. 18, 1991]
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### §§ 4290.3026-4290.3029 [Reserved]
| **National Center    for     Health Statistics            Division of Data     Services            6525 Belcrest Road     Hyattsville, MD     20782-2003     (301)458-4636      **

 

**Statistical Export and Tabulation System****NCHS Home | SETS Home | Interface | Designer Kit | Download Rev 805    What's New | Available Data | Ordering    Instructions |****Search NCHS | Contact us*****Ordering Instructionsfromthe Government    Printing Office (GPO)**
**1.****Obtain stock number, title, and    price** of the desired products from listing.

**2.****Place an order** with    the Government Printing Office.

 

 

**NCHS Home | SETS Home | Interface | Designer Kit | Download Rev 805    What's New | Available Data | Ordering    Instructions |****Search NCHS | Contact us**
**CDC Home | Search    | Health Topics A-Z**
This page last reviewed August 30, 2000

**U.S.    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES****Centers    for Disease Control and Prevention**    National Center for Health Statistics    Division of Data Services     Hyattsville, MD    20782-2003    (301) 458-4636
 

 

 

 

 *** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2125

RICK NOEL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

KAISER BELLWOOD CORPORATION; JAMES S.

JOHNSTON,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 01-1277

RICK NOEL,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KAISER BELLWOOD CORPORATION; JAMES S.

JOHNSTON,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-99-654-3)

Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 14, 2002
2

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philip Bradley, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for Appellant. Michael P.

Oates, Edwin F. Farren, IV, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Rick Noel appeals from the district court’s order dismissing

his complaint alleging employment discrimination under 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1981, 1985 (1994). Kaiser Bellwood Corporation and James S.

Johnston appeal from the district court’s order granting Noel’s

motion to extend the notice of appeal period. We have reviewed the

parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. See Noel v. Kaiser Bellwood

Corp., No. CA-99-654-3 (E.D. Va. July 25, 2000; Jan. 30, 2001). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED