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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,122
<SECURITIES>                                       986
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                       418
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,250
<PP&E>                                           6,079
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,601
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,178
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,356
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,515
<SALES>                                         17,648
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,648
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,658
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,491
<INCOME-TAX>                                       966
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,525
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,525
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
#### William T. Kirby *v.*Louis Zlotnick

*Henry W. O’Brien,*for the appellee (defendant).

*James F. Bingham,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Henry W. O’Brien,*on the motion.

*James F. Bingham,*in opposition.

Submitted April 28

decided June 3, 1969

Argued June 3

decided June 3, 1969

The supplemental motion by the defendant dated April 22, 1969, to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is denied.

The motion by the defendant to erase or strike the plaintiff’s request for a finding and draft finding in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MACKIE 
DESIGNS INC.'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         123,611
<SECURITIES>                                 6,309,659
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,922,951
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,421,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 39,748,903
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            80,241,088
<PP&E>                                      36,208,690
<DEPRECIATION>                            (11,639,663)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             119,337,009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       44,457,248
<BONDS>                                     18,984,200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    27,102,335
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,466,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               119,337,009
<SALES>                                    100,975,066
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           100,975,066
<CGS>                                       62,703,694
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               62,703,694
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            30,105,616
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,520,648
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,654,901
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,052,211
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,580,774
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,580,774
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10956

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT LYNN BELL,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:93-CR-302-T

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 1996

Before REAVLEY, DUHÉ and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Lynn Bell appeals from the district court's decision

to depart upward from the sentencing guidelines. He contends

that the district court erred by imposing his 240-month sentence

to run consecutively to his state sentences. Bell argues that

U.S.S.G. § 5K2.3, p.s. requires a finding by the district court

that the victim suffered psychological injury much more serious

than that normally resulting from the commission of the offense

and that the evidence in the record did not support such a 
No. 95-10956

-2-

finding. Because the Government produced unrebutted evidence

that the victim had suffered a substantial impairment of her

psychological and behavioral functioning that was likely to be of

an extended duration and that was manifested by psychological

symptoms or by changes in behavior patterns, see § 5K2.3, p.s.,

the district court did not abuse its discretion by departing

upward pursuant to § 5K2.3. See United States v. Anderson, 5

F.3d 795 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1118 (1994).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (File Nos. 333-03849, 333-116739, and 333-139177) on Forms 
S-8 of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. of our reports dated April 1, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2007, and the related financial statement schedule II, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which reports
appear in the December 31, 2007, annual report on Form 10-K/A of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc.

Our
report dated April 1, 2008, on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. acquired Marcel Desrochers, Inc. during 2007, and management excluded from its assessment of the effectiveness of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc.'s internal
control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, Marcel Desrochers, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting associated with total assets of $5.8 million and
total revenues of $1.0 million included in the consolidated financial statements of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. and subsidiaries as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Our
audit of internal control over financial reporting of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. also excluded an evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting of the Marcel
Desrochers, Inc.

Our
report dated April 1, 2008, on the consolidated balance sheets of Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2007, and the related financial statement schedule II refers to the Company's adoption of the fair value method of accounting for stock-based compensation as required by
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),Share-Based Payment, on January 1, 2006 and the adoption of the recognition and
disclosure provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158,Employer's Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement
Plans, as of December 31, 2006.



Omaha,
Nebraska
June 30, 2008

---



QuickLinks
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 34 (Monday, February 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 7570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3379]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Federal Advisory Committee; Military Leadership Diversity 
Commission (MLDC); Meeting Cancellation

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness, DoD.

ACTION: Meeting notice; cancellation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 
1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine 
Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150, the 
Department of Defense announces that the Military Leadership Diversity 
Commission (MLDC) meeting that was scheduled for February 10-12, 2010, 
in Hampton, VA, has been canceled due to major snow storms affecting 
the eastern coast of the United States. The meeting was announced in 
the Federal Register on January 14, 2010 (75 FR 2114).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Master Chief Steven A. Hady, 
Designated Federal Officer, MLDC, at (703) 602-0838, 1851 South Bell 
Street, Suite 532, Arlington, VA, E-mail [email protected].

    Dated: February 16, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-3379 Filed 2-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
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 a r 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 STEPH EN M . CA N A S, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. RAYTHEON TE CHNI CAL S ER VI CE S C O M P A N Y , L L C , as ubs i di a ryof R ayth eo n C o m p an y, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 10- 56897 D . C . N o. 5: 10 -c v-01 43 2-R -E 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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a nue l L . R e a l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012 ** B e f o r e : R A W L I N S O N , M U R G U I A , a n dW A T F O R D , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . S t e phe n M . C ana s appe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rdi s m i s s i ng h is e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n a g a in s t R a y th e o n T e c h n ic a l S e rv ic e s C o m p a n y , L L C . W e 

# FI LED OC T 16 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 56897 2 h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . H a rr e ll v . 2 0 th C e ntur yI ns . C o. , 934 F . 2d 203, 206 ( 9th C i r . 1991) . W e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd. A l tho ug h the di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed hi s c l ai m s, C anas w as p ro ceed i n g p ro se, an dth e d i stri ctco u rtab u sedi t s d i scret i o n b y d i sm i ssi n g C an as’ a c tio n w ith p r e

ju d ic e a n dw ith o u t a n o p p o rtu n ityto a m e n d . See Flo w ers v. Fi rst H aw ai i an B ank , 295 F . 3d 966, 976 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( not i ng s t a nda r d of r e vi e w a nd thatthi s c ou rti s “ verycaut i ou s i n app rovi ng a di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o d eny pro se l i t i gant s l eave t o am end”); L u ca s v. D ep ’t o f C o rr . , 66 F . 3d 24 5, 24 8 (9th C i r. 1995) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( “ U nl e s s i ti s abs ol ut e l yc l e a rtha tno a m e ndm e ntc a n c ur e the de f e c t , . . . apr o s e l i t i ga nti s e nt i t l e d t o not i c e of the c om pl a i nt ’ s de f

i c i e nc i e s a nd a n o p p o rtu n ityto a m e n dp r io rto d is m is s a l o f th e a c tio n .” ) . A cc ordi ng l y, w e vac at e and re m and t o al l ow C anas an op po rtun i ty t o fi l e an a m e n d e dc o m p la in t. R a y the on’ s obj e c t i on t o a nd m ot i on t o s tr i ke C a na s ’ r e que s t s t o s uppl e m e nt the r e c or d on appe a l a r e gr a nt e d. E a c h p a rtys h a ll b e a rits o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. V AC AT E D a n d RE MAND E D.
§ 522.1684 Pegbovigrastim. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each pre-filled, single-dose syringe contains 15 milligrams of pegbovigrastim.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in cattle* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer the first dose (syringe) by subcutaneous injection 7 days prior to the cow's or heifer's anticipated calving date. If necessary, the first dose may be administered within a range of 4 to 10 days prior to the anticipated calving date to accommodate management schedules. Administer the second dose (syringe) by subcutaneous injection within 24 hours after calving.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the reduction in the incidence of clinical mastitis in the first 30 days of lactation in periparturient dairy cows and periparturient replacement dairy heifers.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[81 FR 36789, June 8, 2016, as amended at 81 FR 48702, July 26, 2016]
#### § 600.20 Inspectors.

Inspections shall be made by an officer of the Food and Drug Administration having special knowledge of the methods used in the manufacture and control of products and designated for such purposes by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, or by any officer, agent, or employee of the Department of Health and Human Services specifically designated for such purpose by the Secretary.

[38 FR 32048, Nov. 20, 1973]
Editorial Note on Part 172
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 172 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 172.430 Iron ammonium citrate. Iron ammonium citrate may be safely used in food in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The additive is the chemical green ferric ammonium citrate.
( b ) The additive is used, or intended for use as an anticaking agent in salt for human consumption so that the level of iron ammonium citrate does not exceed 25 parts per million (0.0025 percent) in the finished salt.
( c ) To assure safe use of the additive the label or labeling of the additive shall bear, in addition to the other information required by the Act: ( 1 ) The name of the additive.
( 2 ) Adequate directions to provide a final product that complies with the limitations prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section.
Editorial Note on Part 570
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 88 FR 45066, July 14, 2023.

§ 570.275 Public disclosure of a GRAS notice. ( a ) The data and information in a GRAS notice (including data and information submitted in any amendment or supplement to your GRAS notice, or incorporated into your GRAS notice) are: ( 1 ) Considered a mandatory, rather than voluntary, submission for purposes of their status under the Freedom of Information Act and our public information requirements in part 20 of this chapter; and
( 2 ) Available for public disclosure in accordance with part 20 of this chapter as of the date that we receive your GRAS notice.
( b ) We will make the following readily accessible to the public: ( 1 ) A list of filed GRAS notices, including the information described in § 570.225(c)(2) through (c)(5);
( 2 ) The text of any letter that we issue under § 570.265(b)(1) or (c); and
( 3 ) The text of any letter that we issue under § 570.265(b)(3) if we grant your request that we cease to evaluate your notice.
( c ) We will disclose all remaining data and information that are not exempt from public disclosure in accordance with part 20 of this chapter.
§ 573.420 Ethyl cellulose. The food additive ethyl cellulose may be safely used in animal feed in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) The food additive is a cellulose ether containing ethoxy (OC2H5) groups attached by an ether linkage and containing on an anhydrous basis not more than 2.6 ethoxy groups per anhydroglucose unit.
( b ) It is used or intended for use: ( 1 ) As a binder or filler in dry vitamin preparations to be incorporated into animal feed.
( 2 ) As a matrix scaffolding for tracers, and the ethyl cellulose content shall not exceed 80 percent of the tracer.
[41 FR 38652, Sept. 10, 1976, as amended at 89 FR 48508, June 7, 2024]
EXHIBIT 32  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Provena Foods Inc. (the Company), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company.



Date: November 11, 2004



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Theodore L. ArenaTheodore L. Arena, Chief Executive Officer  
|                                                                    
|/s/    Thomas J. MulroneyThomas J. Mulroney, Chief Financial Officer
# FILED
January 13, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON

STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9707-CC-00241 ) vs. ) CROCKETT COUNTY ) DANNY D. AN DERSON, ) Nos. 1932-34 ) Appellant. )

O R D E R
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s mo tion, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Crimi nal Appeals, to affirm the judgment of the trial court by order rather than formal opini on. The appellant pled guilty on October 9, 1984, to forgery and passing forg ed papers, third degree bur glary and grand la rceny, and grand larceny and receiv

ing and concealing stol en property. The appellant r eceived an effective sentence of four years. The appellant did not appeal these conv ictions. On April 28, 1997, the appellant fil ed motions in the trial cour t to expunge the record of these conviction s. The trial court dismissed the m otions without a h earing.

On appeal, the appellant argues that the expungement o f these convictions is required because this Court previously held that these convictions were improperly used to enhance s ubsequent convictions w hen the record on appeal was inadequate to determine whet her counsel was present at the time the appellant entered these prior guilty

pleas. State v. Danny Anderson , No. 1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Aug. 27, 1986). Contrary to the appellant’s argument, however, the Court did not hold that these prior convic

tions were invali d. The appellant is apparently concerned that these prior convictions may improperly be used for future enhanceme nt purposes.

The statutes of this state provi de for the expungement of criminal records only in limited cir

cumstances. See e.g. T.C.A. §§ 40-15-105 (relati ng to pretrial2

diversion), 40-32-101 (relating to dismiss al or acquittal), and 40-35-313 (relating to probation). We have failed to find any author ity allowing the courts of this state to expunge the record of a v alid criminal convi ction. Nor has the appellant cited to any authority to support his position. See Rule 10, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Having revie wed the rec ord on ap peal, inc luding th e appella nt’s brie f, we find that the trial court properly dismissed the appellant’s motions to expunge the record of his prior convicti ons. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDER ED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in ac cordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Enter, this the ___ day of Januar y, 1998.

______________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUD GE

______________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

______________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E
§ 516.167 Removal from the index. ( a ) After due notice to the holder of the index listing and an opportunity for an informal conference as described in § 516.123, FDA shall remove a new animal drug from the index if FDA finds that: ( 1 ) The same drug in the same dosage form for the same intended use has been approved or conditionally approved;
( 2 ) The expert panel failed to meet the requirements in § 516.141;
( 3 ) On the basis of new information before FDA, evaluated together with the evidence available to FDA when the new animal drug was listed in the index, the benefits of using the new animal drug for the indexed use do not outweigh its risks to the target animal, taking into account the harm caused by the absence of an approved or conditionally-approved new animal drug for the minor species in question;
( 4 ) Any of the conditions in § 516.133(a)(2), (5), or (6) are present;
( 5 ) The manufacture of the new animal drug is not in accordance with current good manufacturing practices;
( 6 ) The labeling, distribution, or promotion of the new animal drug is not in accordance with the index listing;
( 7 ) The conditions and limitations of use associated with the index listing have not been followed; or
( 8 ) Any information used to support the request for addition to the index contains any untrue statement of material fact.
( b ) The agency may partially remove an indexing listing if, in the opinion of the agency, such partial removal would satisfactorily resolve a safety or effectiveness issue otherwise warranting removal of the listing under section 572(f)(1)(B) of the act.
( c ) FDA may immediately suspend a new animal drug from the index if FDA determines that there is a reasonable probability that the use of the drug would present a risk to the health of humans or other animals. The agency will subsequently provide due notice and an opportunity for an informal conference as described in § 516.123.
( d ) A decision of FDA to remove a new animal drug from the index following an informal conference, if any, shall constitute final agency action subject to judicial review.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000709 21-JUN-2019 07:54 AM