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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,502
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,684
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                         59
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,470
<PP&E>                                           5,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,046
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,519
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,820
<SALES>                                          2,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,357
<CGS>                                            2,112
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   143
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,863
<INCOME-TAX>                                       132
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,731
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,731
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.378
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.378
        

</TABLE>
#### § 927.1 Secretary.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, or any officer or employee of the Department of Agriculture who has been delegated, or to whom authority may hereafter be delegated, the authority to act for the Secretary.
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 26 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 26 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 26 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 26 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 26 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 26-2 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 26-3 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 26-3 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 26-3 Filed 03/14/2007 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00723-MHT-CSC Document 2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 3 of 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00140-CV

Michael BASELUOS and Athena Rasmusson,

Appellants

v.

George SARRAN,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 343342

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 4, 2011

DISMISSED

Appellants filed a notice of appeal on February 18, 2011. The notice did not state the 

date of the order or judgment from which appellants sought to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(d)(2). This court queried appellants regarding this omission, and appellants admitted that 

no appealable order or judgment had yet been signed, but that one was expected shortly. Time 

passed, and neither the clerk nor the court reporter filed their respective records. When advised 

by this court that the records were past due, both the clerk and the court reporter advised this 
04-11-00140-CV

- 2 -

court that no final, appealable order had yet been signed, and the case was ongoing in the trial 

court. This court again contacted appellants, but they again failed to produce or advise us of the 

existence of any appealable order. 

Accordingly, on March 28, 2011, we issued a show cause order to appellants, ordering 

them to file, on or before April 12, 2011, a response showing cause why this appeal should not 

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction because of the absence of any appealable order or 

judgment. Appellants did not file a response. 

We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c) 

(permitting appellate court to dismiss appeal for want of jurisdiction or for appellant’s failure to 

comply with court order within specified time). We order all costs assessed against appellants.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) (absent agreement of parties, costs are taxed against appellant). 

PER CURIAM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CAMELLIA THERAPEUTIC FOSTER )

AGENCY, LLC, REPRESENTED BY )

JOSEPH APPIAH, CHAIRMAN )

CAMELLIA THERAPEUTIC FOSTER )

CHILDREN, FOSTER PARENTS, and )

STAFF, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv735-MHT

)

GOVERNOR BOB RILEY, DEPT. OF )

HUMAN RESOURCES )

COMMISSIONER PAGE WALLEY, )

and SUSAN WARD, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Now pending before the court is the February 20, 2007, motion to withdraw (doc. #

23) filed by defense counsel Joel Marsh. Upon consideration of the motion and for good

cause, it is

ORDERED that the motion to withdraw (doc. # 23) be and is hereby GRANTED.

Done this 20 day of February, 2007. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00735-MHT-CSC Document 25 Filed 02/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### § 945.100 Communications.

Unless otherwise provided by specific direction of the committee, all reports, applications, submittals, requests, and communications in connection with the marketing agreement and order, both as amended, shall be addressed to the committee at its principal office.
SUBCHAPTER A - GENERAL

PART 1000 [RESERVED]

PART 1001 - DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ACQUISITION REGULATION (DTAR)

SYSTEM

PART 1002 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS

PART 1000 [RESERVED]

PART 1001 - DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY ACQUISITION REGULATION (DTAR)

SYSTEM

Subpart 1001.1 - Purpose, Authority, Issuance

1001.101 Purpose.

1001.104 Applicability.

1001.105 Issuance.

1001.105-1 Publication and code arrangement.

1001.105-2 Arrangement of regulations.

1001.105-3 Copies.

1001.106 OMB Approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Subpart 1001.3 - Agency Acquisition Regulations

1001.301 Policy.

1001.304 Agency control and compliance procedures.

Subpart 1001.4 - Deviations from the FAR

1001.403 Individual deviations.

1001.404 Class deviations.

Subpart 1001.6 - Career Development, Contracting Authority and Responsibilities

1001.670 Contract clause.

PART 1002 - DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS

Subpart 1002.1 - Definitions

1002.101 Definitions.

1002.70 Abbreviations.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1906

REUBEN OLUGBENGA OKE,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A75-367-360)

Submitted: February 5, 2007 Decided: April 4, 2007

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ralph J. DiPietro, THE LAW OFFICE OF RALPH J. DIPIETRO, PC,

Hyattsville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant

Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, John

P. Devaney, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

None of the exceptions to the ninety-day period apply. 

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Reuben Olugbenga Oke, a native and citizen of Nigeria,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. We deny the

petition for review.

 We review the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider

with extreme deference and only for an abuse of discretion.

Stewart v. INS, 181 F.3d 587, 595 (4th Cir. 1999). Such motions

are especially disfavored “in a deportation proceeding, where, as

a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the

deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.”

INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). A motion to reopen “must

be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final

administrative decision was rendered.”* 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)

(2006).

Because Oke filed the motion to reopen beyond the ninetyday period for filing such motions, we find the Board did not abuse

its discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 7, 2011.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President), 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

                    1.                     *Frontier Management, LLC,*                     and                     *Frontier Holdings, LLC,*                     both in Omaha, Nebraska; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of ARSEBECO, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Richardson County Bank & Trust Company, both in Falls City, Nebraska.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 9, 2010.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2010-31302 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD MARSHALL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-701-ID

)

CHRIS WEST, in his individual )

capacity, LASHUN HUTSON, in his )

individual capacity, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Enlargement of

Time, filed on February 13, 2008 (Doc. 35), it is ORDERED that said Motion be and the

same is hereby GRANTED to and including March 12, 2008. Defendants may file a

reply on or before March 19, 2008. 

Done this 14 day of February, 2008. th

 /s/ Ira DeMent 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00701-ID-CSC Document 36 Filed 02/14/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Barbara Williams, 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 so much of a determination of the respondent State commissioner dated January 25, 1978 and made after a statutory fair hearing, as modified a determination of the local agency to recoup overpayments made to petitioner on her behalf and on behalf of her dependent children so as to permit recovery only as to the amount of assistance provided on her behalf. Petition granted and determination annulled insofar as reviewed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and respondents may not recover the outstanding balance of alleged overpayments provided on the petitioner’s behalf. At the statutory fair hearing, petitioner admitted that she failed to inform the agency of her marriage to Charles Williams, but denied that Williams, who she claimed was unemployed during the period in question, contributed to the family’s support. To corroborate her denial, petitioner produced a letter from a company which had employed Williams, listing the dates of his employment, which showed that Williams was not employed there during the period in question. For its part, the agency made only a conclusory allegation that Williams contributed to the family’s support during the relevant period. The allegation was based on a hearsay statement in an internal memorandum to the effect that Mr. Williams was employed during the relevant period. When questioned, the agency representative at the hearing admitted that "At the time this memo was prepared by [the agency employee] there was no evidence in the record nor secured by this agency that [Williams] had in fact been employed”. In light of the evidence adduced in support of the petition the uncorroborated hearsay statement was insufficient to support the agency’s determination *953(see *Matter of Fore v Toia,*60 AD2d 913; *Matter of Ayala v Toia, 59*AD2d 739; *Matter of Soto v Berger,*53 AD2d 529). Hopkins, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
§ 930.30 Powers. The Board shall have the following powers: ( a ) To administer this part in accordance with its terms and provisions;
( b ) To make rules and regulations to effectuate the terms and provisions of this part;
( c ) To receive, investigate, and report to the Secretary complaints of violations of this part; and
( d ) To recommend to the Secretary amendments to this part.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER MEAHL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-726

[March 16, 2023]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Jill K. Levy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 21-2886MU10A.

Jack A. Fleischman of Fleischman & Fleischman, West Palm Beach, for 

appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GERBER, and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary White, Appellant.

Submitted July 23, 2007;

decided September 6, 2007

Reported below, 40 AD3d 662.

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn W.L. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Outdoor ChannelHoldings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, William A. Owen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| /s/ William A. Owen     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| **William A. Owen**     |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| February 12, 2007       |

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to Outdoor ChannelHoldings, Inc. and will be retained by Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
#### § 983.9 Confidential data or information.

*Confidential data or information* submitted to the committee consists of data or information constituting a trade secret or disclosure of the trade position, financial condition, or business operations of a particular entity or its customers.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J OS E L UI S ME ND OZ A- NA R AN J O, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 11- 50487 D. C. No . 3 : 1 1 - c r - 0 4 4 9 2 - BE N ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R oge rT . B e ni t e z , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d June 26, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , H A W K IN S , an dG O U L D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Jose L ui s M endo za -N ar anj o app ea l s f rom the tw o-ye arse nt ence i m po se d fol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty- pl eaconv i ct i on for bei ng a deport ed al i en foun d i n the U ni t ed St a t e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. 

# FI LED JU N 29 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 50487 2 § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f

f i rm. M e ndoz a - N a r a nj o c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtpr oc e dur a l l ye rr e d by f a i l i ng t o c ons i de rthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , f a i l i ng t o c ons i de ra l l of

the 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f a c to r s , an dn o t a d e q u a te lye x p la in in g th e b a s is f o rits up w a r dv a r ian c e f

r o m th e G u id e lin e s r an g e . T h e r e c o r db e lie s th e s e c o n te n tio n s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtc ons i de r e d the G ui de l i ne s a nd the s e c t i on 3553( a ) f a c t or s , a nd a d e q u a te lye x p la in e dth e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . See U n ite d Sta tes v . Ca r ty , 520 F . 3d 98 4, 99 1-92 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). M e n d o z a - N a r a n

jo a ls o c o n te n d s th a t h is ab o v e - G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e is s ubs t a nt i ve l yunr e a s onabl e be c aus e i ti s gr e a t e rthan ne c e s s aryt o s a t i s f ythe p u rp o s e s o f

s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . T h e s e n te n c e im p o s e dis s ub s tan tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le in lig h t o f th e to ta lityo f

th e c ir c u m s tan c e s a n dth e s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f a c to r s . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7). AF F I RME D.
1452.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes Department of the Interior provisions and clauses for use in acquisition.

Parent topic: PART 1452 - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0000761895
<NAME>     StarTronix International Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>     1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               56500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      5118579
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                    650
<COMMON>                                     48461
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 56500
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               591208
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            7500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (598528)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               (598528)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (O.O2)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.02)


</TABLE>
Case 2:06-cr-00196-MHT-CSC Document 18-2 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 1
#### § 927.74 Derogation.

Nothing contained in this subpart is or shall be construed to be in derogation of, or in modification of, the rights of the Secretary or of the United States to exercise any powers granted by the act or otherwise, or, in accordance with such powers, to act in the premises whenever such action is deemed advisable.