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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          481438
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   348779
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    8933311
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              12889833
<PP&E>                                        11806858
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                28604383
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6415957
<BONDS>                                        5881307
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        497795
<OTHER-SE>                                    15809324
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  28604383
<SALES>                                       23613453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              23613453
<CGS>                                         15436536
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 25254813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                142987
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1784347)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (603013)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1181334)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1181334)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Front Range Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
William A. Mitchell, Jr. Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                        /s/ William A. Mitchell, Jr.
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        William A. Mitchell, Jr.
                                        Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Front Range Capital Corporation and will be retained by Front Range
Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### § 111.425 What requirements apply to a packaged and labeled dietary supplement that is rejected for distribution?

You must clearly identify, hold, and control under a quarantine system for appropriate disposition any packaged and labeled dietary supplement that is rejected for distribution.
### This Federal Fiscal QUARTER CUMULATIVE **2.** Cooperative Agreem ent Num ber: 

## United States **ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTION A** **GENCY**

**Washington, DC 20460**

**1.** Cooperative Agreem ent Recipient Nam e:



### PA **RT II - PERFORMA NCE MEA** **SURES INFORMA TION**  

## JOB TRA **INING REPORTING FORM** Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average x hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate — or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden—to the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Code 2822T, W ashington, DC 20460 and to the Paperwork Reduction Project, Office of Management and Budget, Wa shington, DC 20503. DO NOT RETURN your form to either of these addresses. Send your completed form to the address provided by the issuing office. 

### PA **RT I - COOPERA**

**TIVE A GREEMEMENT RECIPIENT INFORMA**  **TION**

**3b.** Number of Veterans Entering Training **3.** Number of Participants Entering Training **3a.** Number of Ex-offenders Entering Training
**4.** Number of Participants Completing Training **5a.** Number of Participants Obtaining Employme nt **5b.** Number of Individuals that did not Obtain Employme nt but are Pursuing Education (e.g., GED, college courses, etc.) **3c.** Number of Participants Entering Training (who are) Currently Receiving TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families) Draft For Approval: OMB No. xxxx - xxxx Expires: mm - dd - yyy

**8.** Supplem ental Performance Measures Information (optional) :

Name (please print) Signature: Date: Name (please print) Signature: **10.** U.S. EPA Regional Representative: **7-1.** Funding Source Name: **7-2.** Activity

Funded:

**9.** Cooperative Agreement Recipient Project Manager:
Date: 

### PA **RT III - A PPROVA**  **LS 7-2.**  Activity

Funded: Pursuing Education (e.g., GED, college courses, etc.) **6.** Average Hourly

W age of Participants Obtaining Employ me nt **7.** Funds Leveraged (total) **7-1.** Funding Source Name: **7-2.** Activity

Funded: **7-1.** Funding Source Name:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: David Ignacio Cristan v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00647

- CR

Trial court case number: 19

- CR

- 2275

Trial court: 56th District Court of Galvest on County

Court

- appointed counsel for Appellant David Ignacio Cristan filed a brief concluding that

th is appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant, acting

pro se, subsequently filed a motion requesting access to a copy of the appellate record for use in preparing a response to his appointed counsel’s brief. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 315,

318

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). We GRANT the motion

.

We ORDER the trial court clerk, no later than 10 days from the d ate of this order, to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to A ppellant. The trial court clerk shall further cert ify to this Court, within 15 days of the date of this order, the d ate upon wh ich delivery of the record to the A ppellant is

made. A ppell ant ’ s brief is due 30 days from the date of delivery of the record.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas

- Molloy

Acting individ ually

Date: June 23 , 2022
§ 507.4 Qualifications of individuals who manufacture, process, pack, or hold animal food. ( a ) ( 1 ) The management of an establishment must ensure that all individuals who manufacture, process, pack, or hold animal food subject to subparts B and F of this part are qualified to perform their assigned duties; and
( 2 ) The owner, operator, or agent in charge of a facility must ensure that all individuals who manufacture, process, pack, or hold animal food subject to subparts C, D, E, or F of this part are qualified to perform their assigned duties.
( b ) Each individual engaged in manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding animal food (including temporary and seasonal personnel) or in the supervision thereof must: ( 1 ) Be a qualified individual as that term is defined in § 507.3, *i.e.,* have the education, training, or experience (or a combination thereof) necessary to manufacture, process, pack, or hold safe animal food as appropriate to the individual's assigned duties; and
( 2 ) Receive training in the principles of animal food hygiene and animal food safety, including the importance of employee health and personal hygiene, as appropriate to the animal food, the facility and the individual's assigned duties.
( c ) Responsibility for ensuring compliance by individuals with the requirements of this part must be clearly assigned to supervisory personnel who have the education, training, or experience (or a combination thereof) necessary to supervise the production of safe animal food.
( d ) Records that document training required by paragraph (b)(2) of this section must be established and maintained and are subject to the recordkeeping requirements in subpart F of this part.
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1137 Ammonium carbonate. ( a ) Ammonium carbonate ((NH4)2CO3, CAS Reg. No. 8000-73-5) is a mixture of ammonium bicarbonate (NH4HCO3) and ammonium carbamate (NH2COONH4). It is prepared by the sublimation of a mixture of ammonium sulfate and calcium carbonate and occurs as a white powder or a hard, white or translucent mass.
( b ) The ingredient meets the specifications of the Food Chemicals Codex, 3d Ed. (1981), p. 19, which is incorporated by reference. Copies are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20418, or available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( c ) In accordance with § 184.1(b)(1), the ingredient is used in food with no limitation other than current good manufacturing practice. The affirmation of this ingredient as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) as a direct human food ingredient is based upon the following current good manufacturing practice conditions of use: ( 1 ) The ingredient is used as a leavening agent as defined in § 170.3(o)(17) of this chapter and a pH control agent as defined in § 170.3(o)(23) of this chapter.
( 2 ) The ingredient is used in food at levels not to exceed current good manufacturing practice.
( d ) Prior sanctions for this ingredient different from the uses established in this section do not exist or have been waived.
[48 FR 52439, Nov. 18, 1983]
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0434. HAYNES CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC. et al.

v. OMARI

On November 16, 2015, we granted appellants’ counsel’s request to withdraw

as appellate counsel. Appellants’ brief was due on November 19, 2015, however on

December 11, 2015, this Court granted Allen Haynes, in his individual capacity and

appearing pro se, an extension of 30 days in which to file his brief. We also noted

that Haynes, as a non-attorney, could not appear on behalf of appellants Haynes

Construction Company and Bryan Haynes, who had not filed an appellant’s brief or

motion for an extension of time to file their brief.

Accordingly, it appearing that as of February 18, 2015, the appellants have

not filed their appellate brief or received an additional period of time in which to file

their brief, appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is hereby GRANTED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

02/26/2016

February 26, 2016
### Floods of August-October 1955, New England to North Carolina

By: Dean Butler Bogart

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1420

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1987

In re: JONATHAN PENDLETON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. (1:23-cv-00446-LMB-IDD)

Submitted: October 19, 2023 Decided: October 23, 2023

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Pendleton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1987 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Pendleton petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court 

has unduly delayed ruling on the motions pending in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He seeks 

an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s 

docket reveals that the district court dismissed Pendleton’s § 1983 action and denied all 

pending motions. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Pendleton’s 

case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1987 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
#### § 520.620 Diethylcarbamazine oral dosage forms.
38612.

#### SOUTHERN BAKERIES COMPANY v. WHITE.

Frankum, Judge.

Although the evidence was in conflict, there was sufficient evidence to authorize the jury to find that the defendant’s agent was operating its truck without a proper *147tail lamp in violation of *Code Ann.*§ 68-1705 (a), and that suc'h negligence was the proximate cause of the collision whereby the plaintiff’s vehicle struck the rear of the defendant’s slowly moving truck on a dark, foggy morning. Our view of the instant case is that it was a question for the jury to determine whether the proximate cause of the collision was the plaintiff’s failure to exercise ordinary care and diligence, such as failing to keep a proper lookout, or the defendant’s negligence, such as the failure to have a proper tail lamp on the rear of its vehicle. The fact that the plaintiff was possibly negligent in some respect, does not necessarily bar his recovery, this being a comparative-negligence State. *Adams v. Jackson,*45 Ga. App. 860 (166 S. E. 258). See *Simmons v. Jones,*55 Ga. App. 831 (191 S. E. 490).

“It is not necessarily such a lack of ordinary care on the plaintiff’s part as will defeat a recovery for the operator of a properly-equipped automobile to drive it in the night at such a rate of speed that he can not stop it within the limit of his vision ahead. Whether he is to be chargeable with negligence or not depends upon what is reasonable under all the circumstances; and unless the facts shown unmistakably point to but one conclusion, the decision of that question is especially one for the determination by the jury. To hold otherwise would force the traveler to assume that the highway was liable to be obstructed, and, in view of this, so to travel that he would not collide with any obstructions in the highway, however negligently they might have been created and maintained.” *Bach v. Bragg Bros. & Blackwell,*53 Ga. App. 574, 577 (186 S. E. 711). See also *McCurry v. Moffett,*80 Ga. App 761 (57 S. E. 2d 451); *Simmons v. Jones,*55 Ga. App. 831, supra; *Adams v. Jackson,*45 Ga. App. 860, supra.

Questions of negligence, diligence, contributory negligence, and proximate cause are peculiarly matters for a jury, and a court should not take the place of the jury in solving them except in plain and indisputable cases. *Howard v. Savannah Electric Co.,*140 Ga. 482 (79 S. E. 112); *Tallman v. Green,*74 Ga. App. 731 (41 S. E. 2d 339); *Columbus Power Co. v. Puckett,*24 Ga. App. 390 (100 S. E. 800); *Southern Cotton-Oil Co. v. Gladman,*1 Ga. App. 259 (58 S. E. 249).

The trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s mo*148tion for a new trial, nor its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Decided February 14, 1961.

*T. J. Long, Ben Weinberg, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Butt & Spence, H. A. Stephens, Jr.,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., Carlisle and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2



                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Smartflex systems, Inc. of our report dated February 4, 1999, included in the
1998 Annual Report to Shareholders of Smartflex Systems, Inc.

Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of Smartflex Systems,
Inc., listed in the Index at Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of
the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on
our audits. In our opinion, such consolidated financial statement schedule
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic consolidated
financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects
the information set forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 33-95434) pertaining to the 1995 Equity Incentive Plan of
Smartflex Systems, Inc., the Registration statement (Form S-8 No. 33-95358)
pertaining to the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Smartflex Systems, Inc.
and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-95372) pertaining to the 1993
Equity Incentive Plan of Smartflex Systems, Inc. of our report dated February 4,
1999 with respect to the consolidated financial statements incorporated herein
by reference, and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to
the financial statement schedule included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Smartflex Systems, Inc.


                                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Orange County, California
April 2, 1999
[No. 40510-1-I.

Division One.

December 15, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Joseph A. Hansen, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for What-com County, No. 92-1-00408-1, David A. Nichols, J., entered March 7, 1996. *Dismissed*by unpublished opinion per Cox, J., concurred in by Coleman and Grosse, JJ.
38524.

#### DEKLE BROKERAGE COMPANY v. KIRK.

Frankum, Judge.

The allegations of the plaintiff's petition show that the defendant, George W. Kirk, was president and “majority stockholder” of George W. Kirk Co., Inc., and on June 30, 1959, he requested the plaintiff to consign certain farm products to George W. Kirk Co., Inc.; that such products were delivered by the plaintiff to George W. Kirk Co., Inc.; that on July 13 and July 20, 1959, the defendant ordered from the plaintiff on open account additional farm products for George W. Kirk Co., Inc., which products were delivered to George W. Kirk Co., Inc., by the plaintiff; that the defendant knew George W. Kirk Co., Inc. was insolvent and had been insolvent for at least three years prior to said transactions; that on August 24, 1949, George W. Kirk Co., Inc., was adjudged bankrupt; that the plaintiff has not been paid for any of said farm products; that “due to the lack of any substantial assets in that company the plaintiff will be unable to ever recover from the George W. Kirk Company, Inc., for the farm products delivered to that company by the plaintiff,” and “that the transactions entered into by the defendant with the plaintiff constitute a violation ... of Georgia Law [Code §§ 5-9914 and 5-9915] and are therefore negligence *per se*as a direct result of which the plaintiff has been injured in the amount sued for.”

The plaintiff does not contend that the defendant represented George W. Kirk Co., Inc., to be solvent, or that the defendant did anything to prevent the plaintiff from ascertaining the financial condition of the corporation. The plaintiff does not contend that the defendant made any false representation or in any way practiced fraud upon the plaintiff. No contention is made that the plaintiff, when making the consignment and the two sales of farm products to George W. Kirk Co., Inc., did not know of such insolvency. The plaintiff's suit is based solely on the theory of negligence, and as such, *75it does not set forth a cause of action. The general demurrer of the defendant to the plaintiff’s petition was properly sustained.

Decided January 19, 1961.

*Ha'as, White & Douglas, Benj. B. Blackburn, III,*for plaintiff in error.

*Frank A. Bowers,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Townsend, P. J., Carlisle and Jordan, JJ., concur.*
#### § 1250.86 Water for making ice.

Only potable water shall be piped into a freezer for making ice for drinking and culinary purposes.
§ 1128.315 Clarification concerning allowability of publication costs. ( a ) *Requirement.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must clarify that a recipient must charge publication costs consistently as either direct or indirect costs in order for those costs to be allowable charges to DoD grants and cooperative agreements.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions* — ( 1 ) *General.* To clarify the allowability of publication costs, a DoD Component's general terms and conditions must include the wording appendix C to this part provides for Section B of FMS Article III.
( 2 ) *Exception.* A DoD Component may instead reserve Section B of FMS Article III in its general terms and conditions if the DoD Component determines that there will be no publication costs under any of the awards using those general terms and conditions.