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  SECOND  QUARTER 1999 BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS  FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,097
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    104,022
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,538
<PP&E>                                         289,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                 265,172
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 226,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,427,689
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,201,150)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   226,539
<SALES>                                        190,593
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               190,593
<CGS>                                          120,110
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  120,110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               175,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 944
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (106,180)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (106,180)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (106,180)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
§ 1921.13 Decision of the hearing examiner. ( a ) *Filing of transcript of evidence.* As soon as practicable after the close of the hearing, the reporter shall transmit to the Chief Hearing Examiner the copies of the transcript of the testimony and the exhibits introduced in evidence at the hearing except such copies of the transcript and exhibits as are forwarded to the hearing examiner.
( b ) *Proposed findings of fact, conclusions, and orders.* Within 10 days after receipt of notice that the transcript of the testimony has been filed or such additional time as the hearing examiner may allow, each party may file with the hearing examiner proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, together with a supporting brief including the reasons for any proposals. Such proposals shall be served upon all parties, and shall contain adequate references to the record and authorities relied upon.
( c ) *Decision of the hearing examiner.* Within a reasonable time after the termination of the time allowed for the filing of proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders, or after the date of submission of an agreement containing consent findings and order, the hearing examiner shall prepare his decision, which shall become the decision of the Assistant Secretary 20 days after service thereof unless exceptions are filed thereto, as provided in § 1921.14 except in cases dealt with in § 1921.8(b). Except in cases under § 1921.8(b) the decision of the hearing examiner shall include a statement of: ( 1 ) Findings and conclusions, with reasons and bases, therefor, upon each material issue of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record, and
( 2 ) An appropriate order.
Except in cases under § 1921.8(b), the decision of the hearing examiner shall be based upon a consideration of the whole record and supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and upon the basis of the preponderance of the evidence.
J. arraguirre J. The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). Accordingly, we approve attorney Paul C. Garcia's resignation. SCR 98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted.

It is so ORDERED. Gibbons C.J. Hardesty J. Douglas cc: David A. Clark, Bar Counsel Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada Paul C. Garcia Perry Thompson, Admissions Office, United States Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 2
§ 1612.6 Closed meeting procedures: request initiated by an interested person. ( a ) Any person as defined in § 1612.2 of this part whose interest may be directly affected by a portion of a meeting may request that the agency close that portion of the meeting to the public for any of the reasons listed in § 1612.4(e), (f) or (g).
( b ) Any person described in paragraph (a) of this section who submits a request that a portion of a meeting be closed, shall submit such request to the Chairman of the agency at the following address: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, DC 20507. Such person shall state with particularity that portion of a meeting sought to be closed and the reasons for such request.
( c ) The Chairman, upon receipt of any request made under paragraph (a) of this section, shall furnish a copy of the request to: ( 1 ) Each member of the agency.
( 2 ) The Legal Counsel for certification in accordance with § 1612.9 of this part.
( d ) Any member of the agency may request agency action upon such request.
( e ) The Commission shall, upon the request of any one of its members and consideration of the certified opinion of the Legal Counsel, determine by recorded vote whether to close such meeting or portion thereof.
( f ) The Chairman of the Commission shall promptly communicate to any person making a request to close a meeting or portion of a meeting under this section the agency's final disposition of such request.
[42 FR 13830, Mar. 14, 1977, as amended at 47 FR 46276, Oct. 18, 1982; 74 FR 3430, Jan. 21, 2009]
1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have

no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the

basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on

the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that

Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-50353

Summary Calendar

WILLIAM P. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

WILMA M. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(SA-94-CV-897)

November 16, 1995

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

The Taylors appeal the district court’s order dismissing their

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action with prejudice. The Taylors

allege that the district court erred by dismissing their tort

claims as barred by the application statute of limitations;
2

dismissing their slander, libel, and fraud claims for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction; dismissing as frivolous their claims

that the Government refused to notify them of its intent to

prosecute and refused to release Mrs. Taylor “as a prisoner”, and

their claim for damages arising out of the Government’s response to

a discovery request; dismissing their Freedom of Information Act

claim; and by dismissing their Privacy Act claims. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. We do note, however, that Mr. Taylor lacks

standing to bring the tort claims against the United States because

his allegations fail to show an actionable interest or actual

injury to himself on which a tort claim under Texas law could rest.

See Johnson v. Sawyer, 47 F.3d. 716, 727 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc);

Texas Assn. of Business v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440,

445 (Tex. 1995); Nationwide Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v.

McFarland, 887 S.W.2d 487, 490 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994); Carr v. Mobile

Video Tapes, Inc., 893 S.W.2d 613 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993). We also

note that dismissal of the claims for refusal to notify of intent

to prosecute, refusal to release “as a prisoner” and for damages

for discovery responses under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) was error because

the Taylors are not proceeding in forma pauperis. We affirm the

dismissal because the claims totally lack merit. See Bickford v.

International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1981).

Except as indicated, we affirm for essentially the reasons given by

the district court. Taylor v. United States, No. SA-94-897 (W.D.

Tex. March 20, 1995).
3

AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 211

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 211 appear at 61 FR 34725, July 3, 1996.

#### § 211.11 Verification.

Applications shall be verified and subscribed and sworn to before a Notary Public or other officer authorized to administer oaths in the jurisdiction in which the application is executed. An application verified before a United States consular officer meets the requirements of this section.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3024-0068)

[ER-1386, 49 FR 33439, Aug. 23, 1984, as amended by ER-1397, 49 FR 50027, Dec. 26, 1984]
[No. 20225-9-III.

Division Three.

November 7, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. David Dale Thompson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Okanogan County, No. 00-1-00323-2, Jack Burchard, J., entered May 25, 2001. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Kato, J.
EXHIBIT 21

                     KEYSTONE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES
                             (DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION)

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Jurisdiction of               Percent of
                                                      Incorporation             Voting Securities
      Name of Corporation                             or Organization                 Held (1)
      -------------------                             ---------------           -----------------

<S>                                                      <C>                           <C>
FV Steel and Wire Company (2)                            Wisconsin                     100.0%

Engineered Wire Products, Inc.                           Ohio                          100.0%

Keystone Wire Products Inc.                              Delaware                      100.0%
</TABLE>

(1)      Held by the Registrant.

(2)      Formerly Fox Valley Steel and Wire Company.
1 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. 95-50931 

Summary Calendar

__________________

CURTIS R. FRANCIS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF TEXAS; ANN W. RICHARDS, Governor; DAN MORALES,

Attorney General; SELDON HALE, III; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-94-CV-486

- - - - - - - - - -

May 27, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Curtis R. Francis appeals the denial of his motion for

appointment of counsel in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights

action. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying counsel. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 811 F.2d

260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 1404.1 Scope and authority.

This chapter is issued by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) under Title II of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Pub. L. 80-101) as amended. It applies to all arbitrators listed on the FMCS Roster of Arbitrators (the Roster), to all applicants for listing on the Roster, and to all persons or parties seeking to obtain from FMCS either names or panels of names of arbitrators listed on the Roster in connection with disputes that are to be submitted to arbitration or fact-finding.
<PAGE> 1

                                                                 EXHIBIT 24

                              POWER OF ATTORNEY


      The undersigned, a director of Kellwood Company (the "Company"), does
hereby constitute and appoint Thomas H. Pollihan or Donald J. Gramke his/her
true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution
and resubstitution, for him/her and in his/her name, place and stead, to sign
the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report pursuant to Section 13 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as Amended for the fiscal year ended April
30, 1998, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, granting unto the attorney-in-fact full power and authority to
sign such document on behalf of the undersigned and to make such filing, as
fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that the attorney-in-fact, or his
substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Dated:      May 28, 1998


/s/ Raymond F. Bentele              /s/ James C. Jacobsen
-----------------------------       ------------------------------
Raymond F. Bentele                  James C. Jacobsen



/s/ Edward S. Bottum                /s/ James S. Marcus
-----------------------------       ------------------------------
Edward S. Bottum                    James S. Marcus



/s/ Kitty G. Dickerson              /s/ William J. McKenna
-----------------------------       ------------------------------
Kitty G. Dickerson                  William J. McKenna



/s/ Leonard A. Genovese             /s/ Hal J. Upbin
-----------------------------       ------------------------------
Leonard A. Genovese                 Hal J. Upbin



/s/ Jerry M. Hunter                 /s/ Fred W. Wenzel
-----------------------------       ------------------------------
Jerry M. Hunter                     Fred W. Wenzel
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12507]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-37,243]


Whizard Protective Ware Corporation, Birmingham, Ohio; Dismissal 
of Application for Reconsideration

    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative 
reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance for workers at Whizard Protective Ware 
Corporation, Birmingham, Ohio. The application contained no new 
substantial information which would bear importantly on the 
Department's determination. Therefore, dismissal of the application was 
issued.

TA-W-37,243; Whizard Protective Ware Corporation, Birmingham, Ohio 
(May 10, 2000.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of May, 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-12507 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of FairPoint Communications, Inc.(the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, EugeneB. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

1.                 The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                 Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| /s/ Eugene B. Johnson                      |     |
|--------------------------------------------|----------|
| Eugene B. Johnson*Chief Executive Officer* | * * |
| March 13,  2007                       | * * |

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

----
§ 1915.86 Lifeboats. ( a ) Before any employee works in or on a stowed or suspended lifeboat, the employer shall secure the lifeboat independently from the releasing gear to prevent it from falling or capsizing.
( b ) The employer shall not permit any employee to be in a lifeboat while it is being hoisted or lowered, except when the employer demonstrates that it is necessary to conduct operational tests or drills over water, or in the event of an emergency.
( c ) The employer shall not permit any employee to work on the outboard side of a lifeboat that is stowed on chocks unless the lifeboat is secured by gripes or another device that prevents it from swinging.
#### § 1602.18 Exemption from reporting requirements.

If it is claimed that the preparation or filing of Report EEO-2 would create undue hardship, the committee may apply to the Commission for an exemption from the requirements set forth in this part.

[32 FR 10650, July 20, 1967]
§ 1610.2 Statutory requirements. ( a ) This subpart contains the rules that the Commission will follow in processing requests for records under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552. These rules should be read in conjunction with the text of the FOIA and the Uniform Freedom of Information Fee Schedule and Guidelines published by the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB Guidelines”). Requests made by individuals for records about themselves under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, are processed in accordance with the Commission's Privacy Act regulations as well as under this subpart. The Commission should administer the FOIA with a presumption of openness.
( b ) As referenced in this subpart, “component” means each separate office within the Commission that is responsible for processing FOIA requests. The rules described in this regulation that apply to the Commission also apply to its components.
[82 FR 45181, Sept. 28, 2017]
** **

**EXHIBIT 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I,Robert W. Hill, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of InterDentService Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,2006 which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or78o(d)); and

(2)information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|            |   | /s/ ROBERT W. HILL                                |
|------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|
|       |   | Robert W. Hill                                    |
|       |   | Chief Financial  Officer, Treasurer and Secretary |
| ** ** |   | August 14, 2006                                   |

 

 

----
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-92,441-01 & WR -92,441-02

EX P ARTE KEVIN HOG UE, Appl icant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. 10969-A & 11387-A IN THE 90 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM YOUNG

COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant plea ded g uilty

to tampering with evidence and evading arr est and, a fter a period of defe rre d adjudication, was sentenc ed to thirty y ear s’ imprisonment in eac h cause . Applicant filed these applications fo r wr i ts of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded the m to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant conte nds that trial counsel was ineffe ctive for allowing him to be sentence d to a term outside the applicable punishment range. He alleg es that he was sentenc ed to defe rre d adjudication for these offe nses with the understanding that they wer e third deg ree felonies and if he violated his rele ase, h e would be sentenc ed within the third deg ree punishment rang e. No enhanc ements wer e alleg ed in the indictments, and there is nothing in the habea s rec ord to show that2

when or if the State proper alleg ed prior convictions for enhanc ement. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Ex parte Argent , 393 S.W .3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Acc ording ly , the rec ord should be develope d. The trial court is the appr opriate f

orum for f

indings of f

act. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. The trial court shall order trial counsel t o re spond to Applicant’s claim. I n developing the rec ord, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hea ring , it shall deter

mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to be repr esente d b y counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to repr esent him at the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel is a ppointed or reta ined, the trial court shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name

. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether trial counsel’s perf ormanc e was defic ient and Applicant would have insisted on a trial but for co u nsel’s alleg ed defic ient perf

ormanc e. The trial c ourt may make a ny other finding s and conclusions that it de ems appropr iate in re sponse to Applicant’s c laim. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and co n clusions of l aw within ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court. Filed: Mar ch 31, 2021 Do not publish
#### In the Matter of David F. Child Welfare Administration, Respondent; Laura F., Appellant.

[698 NYS2d 165]

—In a neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Laura F. appeals from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Queens County (Berman, J.), dated November 24, 1997, which, upon a fact-finding order of the same court dated June 19, 1997, made upon the appellant’s admission that she had neglected her child, placed the child in the custody of the Department of Social Services for a period of 12 months.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the dispositional order must be dismissed as academic because that order expired by its own terms on November 24, 1998 *(see, Matter of Lockett S. v Onya S.,*247 AD2d 622; *Matter of Richard S.,*242 AD2d 575; *Matter of Ricardo R.,*220 AD2d 431; *Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N. Y. [Nicholas A.] v Abigail A.,*219 AD2d 652). S. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Krausman, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.