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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
               This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted
               from  the  Condensed   Consolidated   Balance  Sheet,   Condensed
               Consolidated  Statements of Operations and Condensed Consolidated
               Statements of Cash Flows, and is qualified in its entirety by
               reference to such financial statements.


</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000856143
<NAME>                        BCAM International, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                       1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.000
<CASH>                                           912,325
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     75,524
<ALLOWANCES>                                      11,245
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,535,385
<PP&E>                                           866,649
<DEPRECIATION>                                   687,566
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,030,890
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            377,645
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         167,179
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,481,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,030,890
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  71,371
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     79,171
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 417,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (418,241)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (418,241)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (418,241)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.03)
        


</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DR. WILLIAM LATSON,

Appellant,

v.

SCHOOL BOARD OF PALM BEACH COUNTY,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2577

[November 3, 2021]

Appeal from the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings,

and the School Board of Palm Beach County; L.T. Case No. DOAH 19-

6177.

Thomas E. Elfers, Miami, and Craig J. Freger, Pembroke Pines, for 

appellant.

Sean Fahey, Office of General Counsel, The School Board of Palm Beach 

County, Florida, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the School Board’s order terminating appellant’s 

employment. The Board’s rejection of conclusions reached in the 

administrative law judge’s order, which were mixed questions of fact and 

law, were imbued with policy considerations on which the appellate court 

should defer to the agency. See Winters v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 834 So. 2d 

243, 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (affirming in part agency order which rejected 

hearing officer’s findings and conclusions, noting that “where the matter 

under review ‘is infused with overriding policy considerations, the issue 

should be left to the agency.’” (citing Pillsbury v. State, Dep’t of Health & 

Rehabilitative Servs., 744 So. 2d 1040, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999))).

Affirmed.

WARNER, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 7, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00992-CV 

KODI MCCUIN, Appellant 

V. 

VINYARD AT THE RANCH, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Justice Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. JE-1903335 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Partida-Kipness 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Appellant attempts to appeal a judgment from a justice court. By letter dated August 26, 

2019, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal and instructed appellant to file, by 

September 5, 2019, a letter brief addressing the Court’s concern. We cautioned appellant that 

failure to comply may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. To date, appellant 

has not complied. 

Appeals from justice courts generally lie either in the county or the district court. See TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.001(a). Consequently, a justice court judgment cannot be 

appealed directly to the court of appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220(a); Tejas Elevator 

Co. v. Concord Elevator, Inc., 982 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.) (mem.op.). 
 –2– 

Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from justice courts, we dismiss this 

appeal and appellant’s pending motion for stay. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

190992F.P05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

KODI MCCUIN, Appellant 

No. 05-19-00992-CV V. 

VINYARD AT THE RANCH, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Justice Court, Dallas 

County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. JE-1903335. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Molberg and Partida-Kipness 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee VINYARD AT THE RANCH recover its costs of this appeal 

from appellant KODI MCCUIN. 

Judgment entered October 7, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         396,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  969,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,913,963
<PP&E>                                       2,064,331
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,157,326
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,874,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,672,702
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,187
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,189,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,874,662
<SALES>                                      7,139,503
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,139,503
<CGS>                                        3,780,237
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,780,237
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,688,138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  58
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,671,070
<INCOME-TAX>                                   618,030
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,053,040
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,053,040
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R.

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 96-40911

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY ROSSANO MINOTTI,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(L-96-CR-23-1)

December 5, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Rossano Minotti appeals the district court’s denial of

his motion to suppress evidence, his motion to reconsider his

motion to suppress, and his subsequent conditional guilty-plea

conviction for possession with intent to distribute approximately
-2-

302 pounds of marijuana. Minotti argues that (1) the district

court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and motion

to reconsider because no reasonable suspicion existed for the stop

of his vehicle; (2) the Government deliberately used perjured

testimony during the suppression hearing; and (3) the district

court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his

motion to reconsider the motion to suppress. 

We have reviewed the record and, for essentially the same

reasons stated by the district court orally at the suppression

hearing and in writing in denying the motion to reconsider, find no

reversible error in the district court’s denial of the motions.

See United States v. Minotti, No. L-96-23 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 11,

1996). Minotti has not demonstrated that the Government

deliberately introduced perjured testimony during the suppression

hearing. See United States v. Bethley, 973 F.2d 396, 399 (5th Cir.

1992). Minotti has shown no error in the lack of an evidentiary

hearing on his motion to reconsider or in the consideration of the

Government’s affidavits. 

AFFIRMED.
#### § 156.6011-1 General requirement of return, statement, or list.

Every person liable for tax under section 5881 of the Code shall file a return with respect to the tax on the form prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service (Form 8725). Each such person shall include therein the information required by the form and the instructions issued with respect thereto.
§ 25.6107-1 Tax return preparer must furnish copy of return to taxpayer and must retain a copy or record. ( a ) *In general.* A person who is a signing tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of gift tax under chapter 12 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code shall furnish a completed copy of the return or claim for refund to the taxpayer, and retain a completed copy or record in the manner stated in § 1.6107-1 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78451, Dec. 22, 2008]
#### James W. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. Robert KAHRE, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walt Budzinski; Ron Smith, ThirdParty Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-16185.

D.C. No. CV-00-01063-PMP/RJJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*317Submitted June 10, 2002.*

Decided June 13, 2002.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, BERZON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Because the panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Kahre's request for oral argument is denied. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Robert Kahre appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for James Anderson on Anderson’s quiet title action. Anderson purchased the property in a tax sale from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). Kahre also appeals the district court’s order dismissing his third-party complaint alleging that IRS agents BudzinsM and Smith violated his rights by seizing and selling the real property for delinquent taxes due. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, *Kohler v. Inter-Tel Techs.,*244 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir.2001), and dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, *Montes v. United States,*37 F.3d 1347, 1351 (9th Cir.1994). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Anderson because Kahre failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the tax deed Anderson received after purchasing the property failed to convey all the right, title, and interest in the property Kahre enjoyed prior to the seizure for delinquent taxes. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6339(b)(2); *Allison Steel Mfg. Co. v. Bentonite, Inc.,*86 Nev. 494, 499-500, 471 P.2d 666 (Nev.1970).

Because Kahre failed to show an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity, the district court properly dismissed the IRS agents from the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. *See Holloman v. Watt,*708 F.2d 1399, 1401-02 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam).

Kahre’s remaining contentions lack merit.

Budzinski and Smith’s request to be included in the appeal as appellees is granted. The clerk shall amend the docket accordingly.

Budzinski and Smith’s request that their brief be filed is granted. The clerk shall file their brief received on August 28, 2001.

All remaining motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is *not*appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 89 Agreed to House (ATH)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 89

   Waiving provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 
             requiring adjournment of Congress by July 31.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 1995

Mr. Sensenbrenner submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 
                      was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 
             requiring adjournment of Congress by July 31.
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, notwithstanding the provisions of section 132(a) of the 
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 198(a)), the House of 
Representatives and the Senate shall not adjourn for a period in excess 
of three days, or adjourn sine die, until both Houses of Congress have 
adopted a concurrent resolution providing either for an adjournment (in 
excess of three days) to a day certain or for adjournment sine die.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 301
Editorial Note: In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations. References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

§ 301.6241-4 Payments nondeductible. ( a ) *Payments nondeductible.* No deduction is allowed under subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) for any payment required to be made by a partnership under subchapter C of chapter 63 of the Code (subchapter C of chapter 63). Payment by a partnership of any amount required to be paid under subchapter C of chapter 63, including any imputed underpayment (as defined in § 301.6241-1(a)(3)), or interest, penalties, additions to tax, or additional amounts with respect to an imputed underpayment, is treated as an expenditure described in section 705(a)(2)(B).
( b ) *Applicability date* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, this section applies to partnership taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, and ending after August 12, 2018.
( 2 ) *Election under § 301.9100-22 in effect.* This section applies to any partnership taxable year beginning after November 2, 2015, and before January 1, 2018, for which a valid election under § 301.9100-22 is in effect.
[T.D. 9844, 84 FR 6571, Feb. 27, 2019]
# USICH Reports

USICH’s performance is driven by the goals of the federal strategic plan. The following documents cite progress we are making in the national effort to prevent and end homelessness, the challenges we are working to overcome, and how we use our resources to support this important work. Older documents are available upon request.

Whistleblower Information

Congressional Budget Justification

Performance & Accountability Report

Federal Guidance

USICH Reports

Data & Trends

All				()

## FY 2025 Congressional Budget Justification

## FY 2023 Annual Report to the President

## FY 23 Targeted Programs That Help People Experiencing or At Risk of Homelessness

## FY 2023 Performance and Accountability Report

## FY 2024 Congressional Budget Justification

#### Pagination

-  										First page																			1									 
-  											Go to page 2																				2									 
-  											Go to page 3																				3									 
-  											Go to page 4																				4									 
-  											Go to page 5																				5									 
-  											Go to page 6																				6									 
-  										Last page																			7									 
-  										Next page
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 09-29]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 09-29 with attached transmittal and policy justification.

Dated: July 28, 2009.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 39949)          ( print page 39950)    

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[FR Doc. E9-18961 Filed 8-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            656,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,942,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (120,000)
<INVENTORY>                                     6,870,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                9,897,000
<PP&E>                                          3,972,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (910,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14,126,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,092,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          193,000
<OTHER-SE>                                        973,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14,126,000
<SALES>                                         3,837,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                3,837,000
<CGS>                                           2,336,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,918,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,469,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                494,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,380,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (803,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,183,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.24)
                                               


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Certification ofQuarterly Report**

 

I, John F. Clifford, Chairman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ofProCyte Corporation, (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)           the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-Q for the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (12 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)           the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  August 12, 2004

 
|   | /s/ John F. Clifford                  |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | John F.  Clifford                     |
|   | Chairman and  Chief Executive Officer |

 

1

----
#### In re Ivey WALKER, Petitioner.

No. 02-6780.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 13, 2002.

Decided June 19, 2002.

Ivey Walker, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Ivey Walker, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging undue delay in the district court. Walker filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2000) on February 20, 2002.

The writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be granted in those extraordinary situations when no other remedy is available. *In re: Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987). We find that there has been no undue delay in the district court. We therefore deny the petition for mandamus relief.

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.*