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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SUNBEAM
CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIODS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          29,088
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  485,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                    42,462
<INVENTORY>                                    507,821
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,050,813
<PP&E>                                         592,587
<DEPRECIATION>                               (135,294)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,317,974
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,997,550
<BONDS>                                        817,128
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,007
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,680
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,317,974
<SALES>                                      1,786,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,786,428
<CGS>                                        1,334,177
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,334,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,619)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             136,631
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (129,024)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,661
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (155,039)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (155,039)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.54)


</TABLE>
#### § 954.7 Failure to appeal proposed action.

A ruling of the authorized official shall become final upon failure of the publisher to file a petition in accordance with the requirements of § 954.8(b).

[36 FR 11567, June 16, 1971, as amended at 38 FR 17217, June 29, 1973]
#### § 962.16 Disqualification of reviewing official or presiding official.

If a Respondent believes, in good faith, that the Reviewing Official or Presiding Officer should be disqualified because of personal bias, or other reason, the Respondent may file a timely and sufficient affidavit alleging such belief with supporting evidence. If the Presiding Officer finds that such allegations concerning the Reviewing Official are meritorious, he may direct the Reviewing Official to disqualify himself and request the appointment of a new Reviewing Official. Where a Respondent seeks the disqualification of a Presiding Officer, such Presiding Officer, may, in his discretion, disqualify himself at any time during the proceeding. In the event a Reviewing Official or Presiding Officer withdraws from a hearing, the proceeding shall be stayed until the assignment of a new Reviewing Official or Presiding Officer.
ACCEPTED

12-17-00041-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

11/29/2017 4:09 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 11/29/2017 4:09:01 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5113

To amend the Flood Control Act of 1944 to provide that investor owned

utilities and other private entities shall have the same rights to purchase

electric energy generated at Federal facilities as public bodies and cooperatives, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 6, 2000

Mr. BILBRAY (for himself, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. PACKARD, and Mr.

CUNNINGHAM) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the

Committees on Resources and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend the Flood Control Act of 1944 to provide that

investor owned utilities and other private entities shall

have the same rights to purchase electric energy generated at Federal facilities as public bodies and cooperatives, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fairness in Electricity

5 Supply Act of 2000’’.
2

•HR 5113 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF PREFERENCE SALES OF POWER.

2 (a) AMENDMENT OF FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF

3 1944.—The Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 887) is

4 amended by striking out ‘‘Preference in the sale of such

5 power and energy shall be given to public bodies and co6 operatives.’’.

7 (b) OTHER AUTHORITIES.—Notwithstanding any

8 other provision of law, no preference shall be given to a

9 public body or cooperative, or any other person or entity

10 in the purchase of electric power and energy generated at

11 a hydroelectric project or other facility owned by the

12 United States.

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect

14 with respect to power sales contracts entered into or re15 newed after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
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.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #3262]
 Alamance County and the contiguous counties of Caswell, Chatham, Guilford, Orange, Randolph, and Rockingham in the State of North Carolina constitute a 
                    ( print page 37812)
                    disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms, winds, and a tornado that occurred on May 25, 2000. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on August 4, 2000 and for economic injury until the close of business on March 5, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30308. The interest rates are: *For Physical Damage*:HOMEOWNERS WITH CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE
7.375HOMEOWNERS WITHOUT CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE
3.687BUSINESSES WITH CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE
8.000BUSINESSES AND NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WITHOUT CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE
4.000OTHERS (INCLUDING NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS) WITH CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE
6.750*For Economic Injury*:BUSINESSES AND SMALL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES WITHOUT CREDIT AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE
4.000
 The numbers assigned to this disaster are 326211 for physical damage and 9H4900 for economic injury. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) Dated: June 5, 2000. Kris Swedin, Acting Administrator.


[FR Doc. 00-15283 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2
  TELIPHONE CORP.
  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 19 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   In connection with the Annual Report of Teliphone Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawry Trevor-Deutsch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:
   (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 results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Lawry Trevor-DeutschLawry Trevor-DeutschChief Financial OfficerDecember 29, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36116-36117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14353]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


Purdue University; Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-
Free Entry of Electron Microscope

    This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 00-009. Applicant: Purdue University, West 
Lafayette, IN 47907-1392. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model CM300. 
Manufacturer: Philips, The Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 65 
FR 25708. Order Date: February 23, 1999.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as the

[[Page 36117]]

instrument is intended to be used, was being manufactured in the United 
States at the time the instrument was ordered. Reasons: The foreign 
instrument is a conventional transmission electron microscope (CTEM) 
and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring a 
CTEM. We know of no CTEM, or any other instrument suited to these 
purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time 
of order of the instrument.

Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 00-14353 Filed 6-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 1 of 2
Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2022 Page 2 of 2
§ 183.35 Maximum weight capacity: Outboard boats. ( a ) The maximum weight capacity marked on a boat that is designed or intended to use one or more outboard motors for propulsion must be a number that does not exceed one-fifth of the difference between its maximum displacement and boat weight.
( b ) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section: ( 1 ) “Maximum displacement” is the weight of the volume of water displaced by the boat at its maximum level immersion in calm water without water coming aboard except for water coming through one opening in the motor well with its greatest dimension not over 3 inches for outboard motor controls or fuel lines. For the purpose of this paragraph, a boat is level when it is transversely level and when either of the two following conditions are met: ( i ) The forward point where the sheer intersects the vertical centerline plane and the aft point where the sheer intersects the upper boundary of the transom (stern) are equidistant above the water surface or are equidistant below the water surface.
( ii ) The most forward point of the boat is level with or above the lowest point of water ingress.
( 2 ) “Boat weight” is the combination of: ( i ) Hull weight;
( ii ) Deck and superstructure weight;
( iii ) Weight of permanent appurtenances; and
( iv ) Weight of full permanent fuel tanks.
[CGD 72-61, 37 FR 15782, Aug. 4, 1972, as amended by CGD 73-250, 40 FR 43857, Sept. 23, 1975; CGD 75-176, 42 FR 2681, Jan. 13, 1977; USCG-1999-5832, 64 FR 34716, June 29, 1999]
250 E Street SW

Washington, D.C. 20525

202-606-5000/ 800-942-2677

TO: AmeriCorps Seniors 

FROM: Danielle Melfi, Chief Program Officer

RE: Use of no cost extensions for AmeriCorps Seniors American Rescue Plan grants

DATE: December 18, 2023

Per 2 CFR 200.308(b), grantees are required to request prior approval to extend their program 

and budget period. AmeriCorps has the discretion to approve no cost extensions requested by its 

grantees, within the parameters identified in the uniform guidance. Historically, AmeriCorps

has typically approved these requests. The purpose of this memorandum is to document a change 

in practice for no cost extensions in fiscal year 2024. This change in practice applies only to 

AmeriCorps Seniors grants funded with American Rescue Plan funds. 

In FY 2024, AmeriCorps will not approve no cost extensions for phase two grants, which have 

an April 1, 2022, or July 1, 2022, start date and were current AmeriCorps Seniors grantees at the 

time of the award. However, AmeriCorps may approve no cost extension requests from phase 

three grants, which have a start date of July 1, 2022, and were new grantees to AmeriCorps 

Seniors at the time of the award. AmeriCorps may approve extensions up to three months, 

provided those requests align with the uniform guidance. If you are eligible to receive a no cost 

extension and would like to request one, please contact your AmeriCorps portfolio manager. 

This decision has been made to reflect the pending reduction of AmeriCorps staff, resulting from 

the conclusion of American Rescue Plan funding at the end of FY 2024. This reduction of staff 

will significantly affect the Office of Regional Operations and the Office of Grants 

Administration, which will experience a 20 percent and 50 percent reduction in staff 

respectively, by Monday, Sept. 30. These staff play a critical role in executing AmeriCorps 

grants management process including grant award closeouts. As a result, AmeriCorps is seeking 

to minimize transactions that extend the administration of American Rescue Plan grant funding 

beyond FY 2024. 

The phase two grants will end as scheduled on Sunday, March 31, 2024, or Sunday, June 30, 

2024, followed by award closeout activities. The phase three grants are currently scheduled to 

end Sunday, June 30. To account for the fact that grantees with phase three grants are first-time 

grantees of AmeriCorps Seniors and/or AmeriCorps, these grantees are afforded the opportunity 

to request no cost extensions up to three months, for an end date of no later than Monday, Sept.

30, 2024.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81137-CIV-CANNON

JOSHUA BAXTER and SANDRA J. SUMMERS,

individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE, INC.,

and TRAVEL STAFF, LLC,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for 

Consolidated Briefing Schedule (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 18], filed on August 31, 2022. The 

Court has reviewed the Motion and the full record. Upon review, the Motion [ECF No. 18] is 

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows.

1. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Consolidated Briefing Schedule [ECF No. 18] is 

GRANTED.

2. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration [ECF No. 15] is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE to be refiled as stated below. 

3. Defendants shall file one Combined Motion to Compel Arbitration as to both 

Plaintiffs, on or before September 16, 2022. The page limit for the Combined 

Motion is hereby enlarged to thirty pages, double-spaced and fully justified.

4. Plaintiffs shall file a joint Response to Defendants’ Combined Motion to Compel 

Arbitration on or before October 7, 2022. Plaintiffs shall be allotted thirty pages 

too, double-spaced and fully justified.

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 1 of 2
 CASE NO. 22-81137-CIV-CANNON

2

5. Any replies in support of the Combined Motion are due no later than 7 days after 

the filing of Plaintiffs’ Response and shall not exceed 20 pages. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 7th day of September

2022.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cv-81137-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2022 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

***RESTATED FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE***
--------------------------------------

THIS  STATEMENT  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1997 AND THE  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF
INCOME AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOW FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30,  1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                      0000003941
<NAME>                     ALLIED PRODUCTS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
<CURRENCY>                                 U.S.DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                           1,168
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,669
<ALLOWANCES>                                       680
<INVENTORY>                                     60,668
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,533
<PP&E>                                          94,698
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,865
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 202,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          101,468
<BONDS>                                            393
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                            94
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   202,972
<SALES>                                        149,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,873
<CGS>                                          113,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,548
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    76
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,652
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,047
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,142
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,905
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,905
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .88



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL D. CULBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 95-2068 H. E. WARREN, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-95-92-2) Submitted: May 14, 1996 Decided: May 29, 1996 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Stephen J. Burgess, STEINGOLD & BURGESS, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Michael F. Imprevento, SACKS, SACKS & IMPREVENTO, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM:Michael D. Culberson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) action alleging that H.E. Warren, the Defendant, arrested him without probable cause on August 30, 1992. On that date Culberson and three friends entered a Denny's restaurant around 2:00 a.m. and ordered drinks and meals. Culberson claims that the service was poor and that his partydid not receive the meals ordered. Culberson complained to the manager and attempted to pay only for the drinks. The restaurant manager insisted that Culberson pay for the meals. Culberson refused and the Defendant, a part-time police officer, was called over and Culberson was arrested. Culberson contends that the Defendant charged him with defrauding an innkeeper and when the state court magistrate refused to issue a warrant on those grounds the Defendant changed the charge to public intoxication and a warrant was issued. The district court granted summary judgment to the Defendant on the grounds that he acted pursuant to a valid warrant. Culbersonargues that the subsequently issued warrant is irrelevant in determining whether there was probable cause to arrest him. Regardless of the issuance of a warrant, probable cause existed at the time of the arrest.The Defendant stated in an affidavit that he smelled alcohol on Culberson's breath and about his person, noticed that his eyes werebloodshot, that he was unsteady on his feet and that he was acting belligerent. Culberson did not deny the allegation that he was drunk. Thus, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the issue of whether probable cause existed to arrest Culberson for being drunk in public. We reject Culberson's argument that the district court should have determined whether probable cause existed to arrest him for defrauding an innkeeper because it was not squarely presented to the court. Moreover, the argument has no merit because probablecause existed for the sufficiently related charge of being drunk in public. See , e.g. Trejo v. Perez , 693 F.2d 482, 486 (5th Cir. 1982). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
# Report