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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
REGISTRANTS  THIRD  QUARTER 1999  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET AND  CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT  OF  OPERATIONS  FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,013
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      391
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    132,472
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               218,842
<PP&E>                                         305,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                 275,078
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 248,959
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,530,636
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,281,677)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   248,959
<SALES>                                        283,478
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               283,478
<CGS>                                          179,394
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  179,394
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               256,637
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (153,707)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (153,707)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (153,707)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)


</TABLE>
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 17
- 00889
- CV

V. C. and R. S., Appellant s

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 98TH DISTRI CT COURT OF TRAVIS C OUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 16
- 006773 , THE HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESID ING

O R D E R PER CURIAM Appellant R. S. filed his notice of appeal on December 27, 2017 . The appellate record was complete January 24, 2018 , making appellant ’ s brief due February 13, 2018

. To date, appellant’s brief has not been fil ed.
T he rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days
f

or court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule requires grea ter compliance with brie fing deadlines. Therefore, we order counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than March 8, 2018 . If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. It is ordered on February 21, 2018.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field
§ 1420.9 FMCS deferral to parties' own private interest arbitration procedures. ( a ) The Service will defer to the parties' own privately agreed to interest arbitration procedure and decline to appoint a Board of Inquiry (BoI) as long as the parties' own procedure meets certain conditions so as to satisfy the Service's responsibilities under the Act. The Service will decline to appoint BoI if the parties to a dispute have agreed in writing to their own interest arbitration procedure which meets the following conditions: ( 1 ) The interest arbitration procedure must provide that there can be no strike or lockout and no changes in conditions of employment (except by mutual agreement) during the contract negotiation covered by the interest arbitration procedure and the period of any subsequent interest arbitration proceedings.
( 2 ) It must provide that the award of the arbitrator(s) under the interest arbitration procedure is final and binding on both parties.
( 3 ) It must provide a fixed and determinate method for selecting the impartial interest arbitrator(s).
( 4 ) The interest arbitration procedure must provide for a written award by the interest arbitrator(s).
( b ) The parties to a dispute who have agreed to such an interest arbitration procedure should jointly submit a copy of their agreed upon procedure to the appropriate regional office of the Service at as early a date as possible, but in any event prior to the appointment of BoI by the Service. See § 1420.5(f) for the addresses of regional offices.
These new regulations are a part of the Service's overall approach to implementing the health care amendments of 1974 in a manner consistent with the Congressional intent of promoting peaceful settlements of labor disputes at our vital health care facilities. The Service will work with the parties in every way possible to be flexible and to tailor its approach so as to accommodate the needs of the parties in the interest of settling the dispute. This was the motivating principle behind these new regulations which permit input by the parties to the Board of Inquiry selection and allow the parties to set up their own factfinding or arbitration procedures in lieu of the Board of Inquiry procedure. We encourage the parties, both unions and management, to take advantage of these and other options and to work with the Service to tailor their approach and procedures to fit the needs of their bargaining situations.
#### § 1471.135 May the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service exclude a person who is not currently participating in a nonprocurement transaction?

Given a cause that justifies an exclusion under this part, we may exclude any person who has been involved, is currently involved, or may reasonably be expected to be involved in a covered transaction.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12315]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Availability of Maurice National Scenic and Recreational River 
Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of Maurice National Scenic and 
Recreational River Draft Comprehensive Management Plan and 
Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service, in cooperation with its partners, 
has prepared and released a draft Comprehensive Management Plan and 
Environmental Impact Statement for the management, protection, and use 
of the Maurice National Scenic and Recreational River in New Jersey. 
The public is invited to review and comment on the draft plan. Comments 
will be accepted for 45 days from the date of this notice. Please be 
advised that, if requested, the National Park Service is required to 
supply the names and addresses of individuals providing comments. For 
more information about this document: contact Mary Vavra, National Park 
Service Program Manager by letter or telephone.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Vavra, Program Manager, National 
Park Service, Philadelphia Support Office, 200 Chestnut Street, 3rd 
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19106, (215) 597-9175.

    Dated: May 1, 2000.
Len Emerson,
Assistant Regional Director, Human Resources, Acting Regional Director; 
Northeast Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 00-12315 Filed 3-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WILLIAM KREEGAR and JANICE )

KREEGAR, )

)

Appellants, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-3520

)

NAPLES ESTATES LIMITED )

PARTNERSHIP, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 23, 2020.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier 

County; Joseph G. Foster, Judge.

Donald E. Christopher of Baker Donelson

Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, 

Orlando, for Appellants.

J. Allen Bobo and Jody B. Gabel of Lutz,

Bobo & Telfair, P.A., Sarasota, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### § 1650.204 Reasonable attempt to notify.

In order to constitute a reasonable attempt to notify the debtor, EEOC may use the last known address on record with the EEOC. In addition, the EEOC may attempt to obtain a more current address from notices returned by the United States Postal Service, or by using the Treasury's Internal Revenue Service (IRS) address inquiry. If the debtor cannot be notified by EEOC through these procedures, the debt will be sent to Treasury for collection.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 2989]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1232]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Information and Intelligent Systems; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Information and Intelligent 
Systems (1200).
    Date/Time: February 1-4, 2000 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
    Place: The River Inn Hotel, 924 25th Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20037.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Ephraim Glinert, Acting Division Director 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230 (703) 306-1926.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Information and Data Management 
Program proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 13, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-1232 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12401]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


Office of School-to-Work Opportunities; Advisory Council for 
School-to-Work Opportunities, Notice of Open Meeting

SUMMARY: The Advisory Council for School-to-Work Opportunities was 
established by the Departments of Education and Labor to advise the 
Departments on implementation of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. 
The Council shall assess the progress of School-to-Work (STW) 
Opportunities systems development and program implementation; make 
recommendations regarding progress and implementation of the School-to-
Work Opportunities initiative; advise on the effectiveness of the new 
Federal role in providing venture capital to States and localities to 
develop STW systems and act as advocates for implementing the STW on 
behalf of their stakeholders.

Time and Place: The Advisory Council for School-to-Work Opportunities 
will have an open meeting on Wednesday, May 31, 2000 from 8:30 am to 5 
pm and on Thursday, June 1, 2000, from 8 am to 4 The meeting will be 
held at the Washington Court Hotel, Washington, DC.

Agenda: The agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, May 31 begins with 
opening remarks by the Co-Chair of the Advisory Council Jacquelyn 
Belcher, President, Perimeter College of Decatur, Georgia. Following 
the opening, the Council will meet with senior representatives of the 
Departments of Education and Labor, the State Directors for School-to-
Work and others involved in School-to-Work system-building to engage in 
a review of the STW initiative. On Thursday, June 1, Council Chair John 
McKernan, President of McKernan Enterprises, Portland, Maine will 
reconvene the Council to continue the discussion of issues related to 
sustainability of the School-to-Work initiative with the State 
Directors for STW, with Department of Education and Labor officials and 
other national, state and local policymakers.

Public Participation: The meetings on Wednesday, May 31 and Thursday, 
June 1 will be open to the public. Seats will be reserved for the 
media. Individuals with disabilities in need of special accommodations 
should contact the Designated Federal Official (DFO), listed below, at 
least 7 days prior to the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie J. Powers, Designated 
Federal Officials (DFO), Advisory Council for School-to-Work 
Opportunities, Office of School-to-Work Opportunities, 400 Virginia 
Avenue, SW, Room 210, Washington, DC 202/401-6222. (This is not a toll 
free number.)

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of May, 2000.
Raymond L. Bramucci,
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training.

Robert Muller,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education.
[FR Doc. 00-12401 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
OkFICE OF THE Al7ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

. AUSTIN 

< 

. . _. 

. 

. : : .i ,.

“.. 

fionorablo JCS& Jams '. . 

f&to Trcamrcr 

Auotirl, ,Toxae, . . 

do08 make, constltuta and appoPnt Sidney e . 

Ucnbov of .llcrrfR County, Tosnn, ita tml8 ‘,’ ,“’ : -I” 

nnJ lorfful n;pii and attorney-in-fact for 

it rend in its mm, plnoo mu1 stoml to pro- ‘.’ 

.. sent boforo the Lef&3laturo of Tcms, or 

any other Gay OonatAtutci? agonay of r.orernmcnt of the Wuto of? Toxn~~ rruy and nll 

clalmO, ri@ts,.tl.tla or intorcat that said ...: 

corporation may hnvo againot tho State of ~ 

Taxas, .u Q 0 

. ' ";* I 

. 

_’ : 

_. ‘. 

: I 

I : 

? 

I ; 

! 

;. 

ii 

I 

..~ 

i 

,. : 

I 

i 

i 

i 

: 

. 

. : 
nonorablo Joeeo Jawa - pago a 

*And our said agent nncl nttornoy-in4ac.t 

. is bcroby given and granted i’W1 ponor and .;. d 

* outliority to prosccuto, oolloot, roacipt for, .+ 

nnd to osccuto ati f&-n, all papcro, roleaoca, 

or oth0r instruments in the mm0 of tbo unclcrelgnc&,that cay bo nccassary In tho collection 

* 

of ~~11 ttios of payments thnt are now duo or 

. 

’ bocone &co to snicl National Glocuit Company by 

: . tho &tat0 of Texas by virtuo .of paynonts m&o 

to tho litnto OS To?ias prior to tho oxocution - ’ 

Of thla inotrumont) 0 Q QV ‘. 

Tho photostat 60~9 ohwo the ei@cltuPa, Of the 

payee. 06 folloueg .~,. > 

‘. . “XATIONA& BISWIT COLiI”~ 

WY’ 0. Pi Xontgomorg 

Vi00 Pro5.law.lt 

"ATT@Si t 

vc* PI Dlios 

V80crotcu*y,a 

. . 

‘. 

t 

1 

Of course,. any gnymdnt by you to any ono dthar 

than the pay00 name4 In tho wilrrnn$ nould,bb at your peril. 

Althou$h not o ncgcitinblo instrunont, tha nnrkid,, novcrtholoss, szy bo transforrod by anslggmont of 

tho payoo; or t.ho ~iamo may be paid to nnothcr 17110 baa boon 

duly authorized to reccivo anil roocipt thorofor. 

Akmrdny, that. tho photontatio instrument is a co+ 

root copy cf tho -orl@.nal povor 0P attorney, nnd that tho 

ori&ml itsolf was D genuine instrument you or0 nut.horizeil 

to IX&~ payment to Aire Ilcnbov, othcrdso, of oourso, you 

rculd not .po nuthorizod to malt0 such pnymcnt , 

Noihio~ uo have ~,a.iO implies in any vay that the 

National Discuit Company &cl not cxccuto tho powor of attorncy,nor that the photostat nocompanying your lottcr is 

not an nccurato reproduction of their instrument. Uo cro 

matins this atntemcnt, howover, in tha intorest OP legal 

aocurnoy s ‘~ . I . 
. 

. 

. . ,161 . : 

4 

lionorahlo Jesse James - page 3 

Si%otlror tbo Faymant 210 mndo to tho Company or 

to l!r. Donbou, it is necessary that an acknowlodgmcnt 

of payr:Cnt of tie ju@ncnt in favor of the National Dieouit company in tho case of that Coqany a,?ainst the -'., 

6tcto of Texas, and a rel-oaso of the fitato from all - 

1iaWlity tbxcunclor, to Oxocutcd as roqulrcd by Eonate iii.11 20. loCi OS.thO 48th Logislaturo, and delivered 

to you. ; .' '-:i 1~. . 

. '. : ,,- 

I,. I.-. h,. 

. . . *. I. 

..j -.. ".. 

*_ : : 1 ,, 

. . . 

Vary truly your0 I : 

* 

. .' .: 

:: :: I 

'. . . _, ! : 

. . _. 

._ . ,' 

.- 9 

- 

.-. 

06~Ut 3 . ” ‘. 

. . 

., . : : ‘4, 

. . 

: 2 

. .
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1489

JOHN DORTUE WEAH,

Petitioner,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JOHN

ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondents.

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

Appeals. (A79-477-351)

Submitted: January 5, 2005 Decided: January 26, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,

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

General, Michelle E. Gorden, Senior Litigation Counsel, Larry P.

Cote, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent Ashcroft.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John Dortue Weah, a native and citizen of Liberia,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (“Board”) affirming, without opinion, the immigration

judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

In his petition for review, Weah challenges the

immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his

eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination

denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the

evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable

factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.”

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have

reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Weah fails to

show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we

cannot grant the relief that he seeks. We further uphold the

immigration judge’s determination that Weah’s asylum application

was frivolous. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.20 (2004).

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of

Weah’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of

proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even

though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who

is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding

of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 378
- 3 -

F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Weah fails to show that he

is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for

withholding of removal.

We also find that Weah fails to meet the standard for

relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such

relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than

not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed

country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). We find

that Weah fails to make the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Office of the Secretary

          - 7 CFR Part 2

# AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, USDA.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                         The Department of Agriculture published in the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 4, 2000, a document of revising 7 CFR Part 2, Revision of Delegations of Authority. This document corrects the amendatory instructions in that document. The revisions to the delegations of authority were made to reflect passage of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.                    

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

Effective February 4, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Philip Schwab, Science Advisor and Legislation Affairs, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA, Room 305-A, Jamie L. Whitten Federal Bldg., Washington, DC 20250, telephone 202-720-4423.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                     The Department of Agriculture published in the                     **Federal Register**                    of February 4, 2000, (65 FR 5414) a revision to the delegations of authority found at 7 CFR Part 2. Paragraph number (a)(1)(xx) was inadvertently omitted from amendatory instruction 2.d. This correction revises amendatory instruction 2.d. to include that paragraph number.                 

In FR Doc. 00-2396 published on February 4, 2000 (65 FR 5414) made the following correction. On page 5414, in the third column, amendatory instruction 2.d. to 2.21 is corrected to read as follows:

§ 2.21 

2. * * *

d. Revise paragraphs (a)(1)(x), (a)(1)(xx), (a)(1)(xliv), (a)(1)(l), (a)(1)(liii), (a)(1)(lvii), (a)(1)(lix), (a)(1)(lxxix), and (b)(1)(i) and add paragraphs (a)(1)(liv), (a)(1)(lxxx), (a)(1)(lxxxi), and (a)(1)(lxxxvii) to read as follows:

Done at Washington, DC on this 11th day of May, 2000.

Dan Glickman,

Secretary of Agriculture.

[FR Doc. 00-12439 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-01-M
#### § 1625.1 Definitions.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is hereinafter referred to as the *Commission.* The terms *person, employer, employment agency, labor organization,* and *employee* shall have the meanings set forth in section 11 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 621 *et seq.,* hereinafter referred to as the *Act.* References to *employers* in this part state principles that are applicable not only to employers but also to labor organizations and to employment agencies.
#### SMITH v. THE STATE.

(Decided January 9, 1917.)

Appeal from Autauga Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Pearson.

No counsel marked for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for failure to file transcript.