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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,103
<SECURITIES>                                     8,386
<RECEIVABLES>                                  297,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,415)
<INVENTORY>                                    292,174
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               642,350
<PP&E>                                         646,747
<DEPRECIATION>                               (108,508)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,152,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          508,760
<BONDS>                                      1,223,571
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          134,685
<PREFERRED>                                        427
<COMMON>                                         2,174
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,152,194
<SALES>                                      1,547,426
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,547,426
<CGS>                                        1,282,784
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,282,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,774
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             102,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,746
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,380
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (347)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (347)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas August 23, 2022 No. 04-21-00233-CV VIA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY ,

Appellant
v. Manuel FLORES , Appellee From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CV06515 Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellee Manuel Flores has filed a motion for extension of time to file his motion for rehearing. Appellee’s motion is GRANTED. Appellee’s motion for rehearing is due October 3, 2022.

_________________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 23rd day of August, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### § 105-54.203-3 Submission to Library of Congress.

The GSA Committee Management Officer furnishes a copy of each charter to the Library of Congress when or shortly after copies are filed with the requisite committees of the Congress. Copies for the Library are addressed: Library of Congress, Exchange and Gift Division, Federal Documents Section, Federal Advisory Committee Desk, Washington, DC 20540.
#### § 102-75.740 Does the State agency have any responsibilities in helping to accomplish the transfer of the property?

Yes, the State agency is required to bear the costs of any out-of-pocket expenses necessary to accomplish the transfer, such as costs of surveys, fencing, or security of the remaining property.
#### § 101-39.302 Rotation.

GSA Interagency Fleet Management System (IFMS) vehicles on high mileage assignments may be rotated with those on low mileage assignments to assure more uniform overall fleet utilization. In cases where the continued use of a vehicle is essential but its miles traveled are not consistent with utilization guidelines, the using agency may be required to justify, in writing, retention of the vehicle. Each GSA IFMS fleet manager will decide on a case-by-case basis which vehicles, if any, will be rotated based upon vehicle type, vehicle location, location and availability of replacement vehicles, and the mission of the using agency.

[56 FR 59890, Nov. 26, 1991]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASENO.22-20422-CR-Y DDLEBROOKS(s)

IJM TED STATESOFAM ERJCA

ISM AEL SOTO AROCHO ,

D efendant.

/

FACTUAI,PROFFER

TheUrlitedStatesofAmericaandIsmaelSotoArocho(thelrefendanf')agreethat,had

thiscase gonetotrial,theUnited Stateswould haveproven thefollowing facts,among others,

beyondareasonabledoubt:

On oraboutAugust24,2022,theDefendantdidknowingly and intentionally attem ptto

possesswithintenttodisG buteapproximately9.17kilogrnmsofcocaine,aSchedule11controlled

substance.

OnAugust17,2022,theDefendantlearnedthatapproxim ately 9.17ldlogramsofcocaine

would bearriving in theUnited Statesviaashipping vesselfrom theDom iilican Republic.The

cocainewastobeattachedtothetmdersideofthevesseltoavoiddetectionbylaw erlforcem ent.

The shipping vesselcarrying approximately 9.17 ldlogrnm s of cocaine anived in the

Southem DistrictofFloridaanddockedontheM inm iRiveronthenightofAugust23,2022.On

them orningofAugust24,2022,theDefendantassistedintheretrievalofwhathebelievedtobe

thecocainefrom thetm dersideofthevessel.

TheDefendantthen drovehiswlliteFord vantoanearby hotel.Onceinsidethehotel,he

Case 1:22-cr-20422-DMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2023 Page 1 of 2
realizedthecocainewasin factshnm narcoticscontainingtracldng devicesplaced theprevious

dayby1aw enforcem ent.Thetruecocainehadbeeninterceptedby1aw enforcementofficersafter

thevessel'sarrivalintheUnitedStates.TheDefendantattem ptedtodisposeofthesham narcotics

bytlrowingthem intoanearbylake.

Thefactsdescdbedabovearenotintended to beacompleterecitationofthefactsofthis

caseandarem erelyintendedtoform abasisfortheDefendant'sknowing,willful,andintentional

pleaofguilty

JUAN ANTONIO GON ZALEZ

UNITED STATESATTORN EY

oate,I/4/z3

Date: ïkk!

Date: ( k $à

By: ' - Jv

IA M .M AI,ONEY

SSISTANT UNITED S TES ATTORN EY

By: ïtlsh

L T B

COUN SEL F EFEND N T

By:

ISM AEL SOTO AROCHO

DEFENDANT

Case 1:22-cr-20422-DMM Document 73 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/06/2023 Page 2 of 2
§ 102-36.290 How much do we charge for excess personal property on a transfer with reimbursement? ( a ) You may require reimbursement in an amount up to the fair market value of the property when the transfer involves property meeting conditions in § 102-36.285(a)(1) through (a)(4).
( b ) When you or the recipient is the DC Government or a wholly owned or mixed-ownership Government corporation (§ 102-36.285(a)(5) and (a)(6)), you may only require fair value reimbursement. Fair value reimbursement is 20 percent of the original acquisition cost for new or unused property (i.e., condition code 1), and zero percent for other personal property. A higher fair value may be used if you and the recipient agency agree. Due to special circumstances or the nature of the property, you may use other criteria for establishing fair value if approved or directed by GSA. You must refer any disagreements to the appropriate regional GSA Personal Property Management office.
§ 105-8.150-1 General. The agency shall operate each program or activity so that the program or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps. This section does not— ( a ) Necessarily require the agency to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with handicaps; or
( b ) In the case of historic preservation programs, require the agency to take any action that would result in a substantial impairment of significant historic features of an historic property.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0916. REYNOLDS v. THE STATE.

In 2013, Damarius Reynolds was tried by a jury and convicted of two counts

of armed robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, possession of a firearm during

the commission of a crime, and possession of a handgun by a minor. On May 13,

2020, the trial court denied Reynolds’s amended motion for new trial. No timely

notice of appeal was filed. In its December 14, 2021 order granting Reynolds’s

motion for out-of-time appeal, the trial court relied on the fact that counsel for

Reynolds admitted that he “should have, thought he had, but ultimately failed to file

a timely notice of appeal of the order denying the motion for new trial.” Reynolds

then filed a notice of appeal on January 3, 2022. 

In Cook v. State, 313 Ga. 471 (870 SE2d 758) (2022), however, the Supreme

Court of Georgia eliminated the judicially created out-of-time appeal procedure in

trial courts and held that a trial court is “without jurisdiction to decide [a] motion for

out-of-time appeal” on the merits because there is “no legal authority for motions for

out-of-time appeal in trial courts.” Id. at 506 (5). Cook also concluded that this

holding is to be applied to “all cases that are currently on direct review or otherwise

not yet final[,]” id., and directed that “pending and future motions for out-of-time

appeals in trial courts should be dismissed, and trial court orders that have decided

such motions on the merits . . . should be vacated if direct review of the case remains

pending or if the case is otherwise not final.” Id. at 505 (4).

Accordingly, the trial court’s order grantingReynolds’smotion for out-of-time

appeal is vacated, and this case is remanded for the entry of an order dismissing

Reynolds’s motion. In addition, because Reynolds’s motion for out-of-time appeal

July 13, 2022
was granted in this case, the trial court is directed to vacate any subsequent rulings

on filings the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide without the granted out-of-time

appeal.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/13/2022
#### § 102-118.650 Can a TSP request a review of a settlement action by the Administrator of General Services?

Yes, a TSP desiring a review of a settlement action taken by the Administrator of General Services may request a review by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) or file a claim with the United States Court of Federal Claims (28 U.S.C. 1491).

[65 FR 24569, Apr. 26, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 30476, June 26, 2009]
#### § 102-75.1005 Who can make the determination within the Federal agency on whether a property can be abandoned, destroyed, or donated?

Only a duly authorized official of that agency not directly accountable for the subject property can make the determination.
§ 955.17 Depositions. ( a ) *When depositions permitted.* After an appeal has been docketed and complaint filed, the parties may mutually agree to, or the Board may, upon application of either party and for good cause shown, order the taking of testimony of any person by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories before any officer authorized to administer oaths at the place of examination, for use as evidence or for purpose of discovery. The application for order shall specify whether the purpose of the deposition is discovery or for use as evidence.
( b ) *Orders on depositions.* The time, place, and manner of taking depositions shall be as mutually agreed by the parties or, failing such agreement, governed by order of the Board.
( c ) *Use as evidence.* No testimony taken by deposition shall be considered as part of the evidence in the hearing of an appeal unless and until such testimony is offered and received in evidence at or before such hearing. It will not ordinarily be received in evidence if the deponent is available to testify at the hearing, but the Board may admit testimony taken by deposition in its discretion. A deposition may be used to contradict or impeach the testimony of the witness given at the hearing. In cases submitted on the record, the Board may, in its discretion, receive depositions as evidence in supplementation of that record.
( d ) *Expenses.* Each party shall bear its own expenses associated with the taking of any deposition.
§ 101-4.520 Job classification and structure. A recipient shall not: ( a ) Classify a job as being for males or for females;
( b ) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority lists, career ladders, or tenure systems based on sex; or
( c ) Maintain or establish separate lines of progression, seniority systems, career ladders, or tenure systems for similar jobs, position descriptions, or job requirements that classify persons on the basis of sex, unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the positions in question as set forth in § 101-4.550.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Endocare, Inc.pertaining to the Endocare, Inc. 2004 Stock Incentive Plan, Option Grants to Craig T. DavenportPursuant to Written Compensation Agreements, Option Grants to William J. Nydam Pursuant to WrittenCompensation Agreements, Option Grants to Michael R. Rodriguez Pursuant to Written CompensationAgreements and Option Grant to Katherine Greenberg Pursuant to Written Compensation Agreement (FormS-8 No. 333-119825), the Endocare, Inc. Amended and Restated 1995 Stock Plan, the Endocare, Inc.Amended and Restated 1995 Director Option Plan, the Endocare, Inc. 2002 Supplemental Stock Plan andOption Grant to John V. Cracchiolo Pursuant to Written Compensation Agreement (Form S-8 No.333-121702), of our report dated March 4, 2005 (except for Note15, as to which the date is March11, 2005, and Note 2, as to which the date is September 12, 2005), with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Endocare, Inc., and our report dated April 29, 2005, with respect toEndocare, Inc.’s management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Endocare, Inc., asof December 31, 2004, included in this second amendment on Form10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004, filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission./s/ Ernst & Young LLPLos Angeles, California
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                         730,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 17,705,785
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       5,141,332
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,757,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,154,179
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      8,570,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,511
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,955,084
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,154,179
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,976,883
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,119,156
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,599,794
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             602,336
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                655,597
<INCOME-TAX>                                   300,638
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            354,959
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   354,959
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Heera Lee, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of AML Communications, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for
the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
June 30, 2008

/s/HEERA LEE

---

Heera Lee, Director of Finance
Principal Accounting Officer

---



QuickLinks
§ 101-26.500 Scope and applicability of subpart. ( a ) This subpart prescribes policies and procedures relating to GSA procurement programs other than the GSA stock and the Federal supply schedule programs. Also excluded are the policies and procedures relating to the procurement of automatic data processing equipment and services set forth in part 101-36.
( b ) The policies and procedures in this subpart 101-26.5 are applicable to executive agencies except as otherwise specifically indicated. Federal agencies other than executive agencies may participate in these programs and are encouraged to do so.
[43 FR 32767, July 28, 1978]
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 603 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  Union Calendar No. 17
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 603

                          [Report No. 106-32]

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify the application of 
   the Act popularly known as the ``Death on the High Seas Act'' to 
                          aviation incidents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1999

 Mr. Sherwood introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                           February 24, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify the application of 
   the Act popularly known as the ``Death on the High Seas Act'' to 
                          aviation incidents.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION AMENDMENT.

    Section 40120(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``(including the Act entitled `An Act relating to the 
maintenance of actions for death on the high seas and other navigable 
waters', approved March 30, 1920, commonly known as the Death on the 
High Seas Act (46 U.S.C. App. 761-767; 41 Stat. 537-538))'' after 
``United States''.

SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies to civil actions commenced 
after the date of the enactment of this Act and to civil actions that 
are not adjudicated by a court of original jurisdiction or settled on 
or before such date of enactment.
                                     

                                                  Union Calendar No. 17

106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 603

                          [Report No. 106-32]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify the application of 
   the Act popularly known as the ``Death on the High Seas Act'' to 
                          aviation incidents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           February 24, 1999

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 
 STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-Q of Worlds.com Inc. (the
"Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
Kidrin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:
 
 * the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 *
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Thomas
Kidrin
 Thomas
Kidrin
 Chief
Executive Officer
 
 
 Date: May
13, 2010
 
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
SCWC-14-0000870

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ROBERT GRINPAS and ESTHER GRINPAS,

Respondent/Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellees,

vs.

KAPAA 382, LLC, a Hawai#i Limited Liability Company;

KULANA PARTNERS, LLC, a Hawai#i Limited Liability Company;

Petitioner/Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee/

Cross-Appellant; and WILLIAM R. HANCOCK,

Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

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

KULANA PARTNERS, LLC., 

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Cross-Appellant,

vs.

WILLIAM R. HANCOCK, Trustee of HANCOCK AND CO., INC.,

PROFIT SHARING TRUST under trust instrument April 3, 1993, 

Third-Party Defendant/Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-14-0000870; 5CC071000132)

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-14-0000870

21-NOV-2019

09:53 AM
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner Kulana Partners, LLC’s application for writ

of certiorari, filed on October 7, 2019, is hereby rejected. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 21, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
#### § 105-8.153 Program accessibility: Interagency cooperation.