alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[ARTICLE] 5
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
ELECTRONIC RETAILING SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT AND FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<TABLE>
<S>                                        <C>
[PERIOD-TYPE]                              12-MOS
[FISCAL-YEAR-END]                          DEC-31-1999
[PERIOD-END]                               DEC-31-1999
[CASH]                                          37,386
[SECURITIES]                                         0
[RECEIVABLES]                                    2,510
[ALLOWANCES]                                     (206)
[INVENTORY]                                      3,772
[CURRENT-ASSETS]                                44,227
[PP&E]                                           4,802
[DEPRECIATION]                                 (2,287)
[TOTAL-ASSETS]                                  49,516
[CURRENT-LIABILITIES]                            3,062
[BONDS]                                         98,207
[PREFERRED-MANDATORY]                                0
[PREFERRED]                                          0
[COMMON]                                           212
[OTHER-SE]                                    (56,853)
[TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY]                    49,516
[SALES]                                          3,843
[TOTAL-REVENUES]                                 4,631
[CGS]                                            7,035
[TOTAL-COSTS]                                   17,338
[OTHER-EXPENSES]                                     0
[LOSS-PROVISION]                                     0
[INTEREST-EXPENSE]                              18,844
[INCOME-PRETAX]                               (36,693)
[INCOME-TAX]                                         0
[INCOME-CONTINUING]                           (36,693)
[DISCONTINUED]                                       0
[EXTRAORDINARY]                                 34,582
[CHANGES]                                            0
[NET-INCOME]                                   (2,111)
[EPS-BASIC]                                     (0.10)
[EPS-DILUTED]                                        0
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 50221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23618]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group, Pediatrics Subcommittee.
    Date: October 21-22, 2009.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: The Legacy, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Rita Anand, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive 
Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 496-1487. 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#43222d222d2731032e222a2f6d2d2a2b6d242c35"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="19787778777d6b597478707537777071377e766f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 24, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-23618 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 59.150 Domiciliary care requirements.

As a condition for receiving a grant and grant funds for a domiciliary under this part, the domiciliary must meet the requirements for a nursing home specified in § 59.140 of this part.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1742, 8105, 8131-8137)
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00388-CR

Ramiro Garcia

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

117th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR15003989-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 7, 2021
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 26, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David Mintz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ David Mintz *
-----------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
Date:  November 10, 2009


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
## NUMBER 13 - 20 - 00015 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN R E DIANNA BER N SEN

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa , and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina 1 On January 13, 2020, r elator Dianna Bernsen f iled a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency motion for stay in the above cause

. Through her petition for writ of mandamus, relator argues that the trial court erred in issuing various verbal and written orders compelling discovery on December 2, 2019, December 3 , 2019, and December 5,

1 See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) ( “ When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case, ” but when “ denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so. ” ); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opi nions and memorandum opinions).2 2019. By emergency motion, relator seeks to stay the underlying proceedings, inclu ding a show cause hearing set for January 13, 2019, regarding, inter alia, relator’s failure to comply with the foregoing discovery orders. “[M]andamus is both an extraordinary remedy and a discretionary one.” In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018 ) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying order is void or a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am ., 494 S.W.3d 7 08, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court ’ s ru ling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide , 494 S.W.3d at 712; Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia , 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate re medy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co ., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d at 136. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator ha s not met her burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the emergency motion for stay. JAIME TIJERINA , J ustice

Delivered and filed the 14th day of January , 20 20

.
719 A.2d 153

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND, Petitioner, v. Lorenzo RANDLE, Respondent.

Misc. (Subtitle (AG) No. 61,

Sept. Term, 1998.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 21, 1998.

*ORDER*

This matter came before the Court on the Petition of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland and Respondent, Lorenzo Randle, to suspend the Respondent from the practice of law for a period of sixty days, commencing November 2, 1998.

The Court, having considered the Petition, it is this 21st day of October, 1998,

ORDERED that Respondent, Lorenzo Randle, be and he is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland for a period of sixty days, effective Monday, November 2,1998, and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Lorenzo Randle, from the register of attorneys in this Court, in accordance with Maryland Rule 16-713.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…Burundi

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: Burundi 			

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Burundi  

## Government-by-Government Assessments: Burundi 

During the review period, the government made significant progress by auditing the entire annual executed budget within a reasonable period. The government published its enacted budget and end-of-year budget report within a reasonable period. It did not make an executive budget proposal publicly available. The government provided a substantially complete picture of its planned expenditures and revenue in publicly available budget documents, including information on financial allocations to and earnings from major state-owned enterprises. Information on debt obligations, including major state-owned enterprise debt, was not publicly available, timely, or comprehensive. Though information in the budget was not always complete, it was considered generally reliable. There were off-budget accounts not subject to adequate audit and oversight, and military and intelligence budgets were not fully subject to parliamentary or civilian public oversight. The supreme audit institution met international standards of independence. All mining activity approved by the prior government was suspended during the review period. The government is redrafting its mining sector regulations and will renegotiate its existing contracts under the new regulations.

Burundi’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Publishing an executive budget proposal within a reasonable period;
- Publishing information on government debt obligations, including for major state-owned enterprises;
- Eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to adequate oversight and audit; and
- Subjecting military and intelligence budgets to adequate parliamentary or civilian public oversight.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: Burundi  

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsBurundiDivision for International Finance and Development

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookTwitterInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
§ 64.14 RVCP grant agreement. ( a ) VA will draft an RVCP grant agreement to be executed by VA and the grantee.
( b ) The RVCP grant agreement will provide that the grantee agrees to: ( 1 ) Operate the project in accordance with this part and the terms of the agreement;
( 2 ) Abide by the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards under 2 CFR part 200, and 2 CFR parts 25 and 170, if applicable.
( 3 ) Comply with such other terms and conditions, including recordkeeping and reports for project monitoring and evaluation purposes, as VA may establish for purposes of carrying out the RVCP in an effective and efficient manner and as described in the NOFA; and
( 4 ) Provide any necessary additional information that is requested by VA in the manner and timeframe specified by VA.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 523 note)
[78 FR 12619, Feb. 25, 2013, as amended at 80 FR 43323, July 22, 2015]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 23, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23051]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

48 CFR Part 909


Acquisition Regulation; Contractor Qualifications

CFR Correction

    In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapters 7 to 14, 
revised as of October 1, 2008, on page 300, reinstate section 909.405 
to read as follows:


909.405  Effect of listing. (DOE coverage--paragraph (e), (f), (g) and 
(h))

    (e) The Department of Energy may not solicit offers from, award 
contracts to or consent to subcontract with contractors debarred, 
suspended or proposed for debarment unless the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Procurement and Assistance Management makes a written 
determination justifying that there is a compelling reason for such 
action in accordance with FAR 9.405(a).
    (f) DOE may disapprove or not consent to the selection (by a 
contractor) of an individual to serve as a principal investigator, as a 
project manager, in a position of responsibility for the administration 
of Federal funds, or in another key personnel position, if the 
individual is on the GSA List.
    (g) DOE shall not conduct business with an agent or representative 
of a contractor if the agent's or representative's name appears on the 
GSA List.
    (h) DOE shall review the GSA List before conducting a preaward 
survey or soliciting proposals, awarding contracts, renewing or 
otherwise extending the duration of existing contracts, or approving or 
consenting to the award, extension, or renewal of subcontracts.

[61 FR 39857, July 31, 1996; 61 FR 41684, Aug. 9, 1996]
[FR Doc. E9-23051 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-15-0000654

06-JAN-2016

09:50 AM
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2598 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify that an 

expenditure made by a political party committee may not be considered 

to have been made in concert or cooperation with a candidate solely 

because the candidate has requested that the committee not make any 

expenditures in support of the candidate or in opposition to an opponent 

of the candidate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 6, 2007 

Mr. SHAYS (for himself and Mr. PRICE of North Carolina) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

clarify that an expenditure made by a political party 

committee may not be considered to have been made 

in concert or cooperation with a candidate solely because 

the candidate has requested that the committee not make 

any expenditures in support of the candidate or in opposition to an opponent of the candidate. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2598 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Independent Expendi3 ture Opt Out Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. POLITICAL PARTY EXPENDITURES NOT MADE IN 

5 CONCERT OR COOPERATION WITH CAN6 DIDATE WHO REQUESTS THAT EXPENDI7 TURES NOT BE MADE. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 301(17) of the Federal 

9 Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431(17)) is 

10 amended by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘For purposes of subparagraph (B), an expenditure 

12 by a political committee of a political party may not 

13 be considered to be made in concert or cooperation 

14 with a candidate or an agent or authorized com15 mittee of the candidate solely because the candidate 

16 has requested that the committee not make any ex17 penditures in support of the candidate or in opposi18 tion to an opponent of the candidate.’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

20 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to elections occur21 ring after December 2007. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<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>                                                 3,276,000
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            443,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                              62,000
<INVENTORY>                                              121,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       4,186,000
<PP&E>                                                   941,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                           154,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         5,873,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1,374,000
<BONDS>                                                  548,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                3,000
<COMMON>                                                  28,000
<OTHER-SE>                                             3,920,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           5,873,000
<SALES>                                                1,296,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,296,000
<CGS>                                                    956,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         12,195,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        38,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (11,893,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (11,893,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (11,893,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (.49)


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6488** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. TIMOTHY LEE SCAIFE, a/k/a Timothy John Scaife , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:09

- cr - 00376

- REP

- 1; 3:11

- cv - 00163

- REP )

Submitted : August 21 , 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Timothy Lee Scaife , Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey , Norval George Metcalf , Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opi nions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Lee Scaife seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certi ficate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Scaife has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Scaife’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability , and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 4, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20-1174 Lower Tribunal No. 20-424

________________ 

### Israel Lewin , Appellant,
vs. 

### Moshe Bourak, et al. , Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko, Judge. The Baker Law Offices, and Ira Robert Baker, for appellant. Kubicki Draper, P.A., and Sharon C. Degnan (Orlando), for appellees. Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.2

Affirmed. See Cheung v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 595 So. 2d 82, 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (explaining that a vehicle on a tow truck is not a dangerous instrumentality while it is under the exclusive control of the tow truck driver); see also Pangea Produce Distrib., Inc. v. Franco’s Produce, Inc., 275 So. 3d 240, 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (noting that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend when an amendment would be futile).