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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                         457,818
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 11,147,779
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       4,133,431
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,228,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,420,932
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      7,061,612
<COMMON>                                        15,001
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,239,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,729,693
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,583,561
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,228,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,710,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             247,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                396,398
<INCOME-TAX>                                   183,671
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            212,727
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   212,727
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 102-37.170 What happens if a SASP does not operate in accordance with its plan?

If a SASP does not operate in accordance with its plan, GSA may withhold allocation and transfer of surplus property until the nonconformance is corrected.
#### § 102-75.825 Who must the disposal agency notify when surplus real and related personal property is available for port facility use?

The disposal agency must notify established State, regional or metropolitan clearinghouses and eligible public agencies that surplus real property is available for the development or operation of a port facility. The disposal agency must transmit a copy of the notice to DOT and a copy of the landholding agency's Report of Excess Real Property (Standard Form 118 and supporting schedules).
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                              
<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                        
                                FDS - 1ST QUARTER
</LEGEND>                       
<CIK>                             0000006207
<NAME>                          AMREP CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
<CURRENCY>                         U.S.DOLLARS
                                    
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       JUL-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                                  9,282
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          64,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                            95,599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            0
<PP&E>                                 32,582
<DEPRECIATION>                         13,532
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        207,893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       0
<BONDS>                                54,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                  740
<OTHER-SE>                             75,599
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          207,893
<SALES>                                23,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       37,795
<CGS>                                  18,563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          30,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      1,156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           841
<INCOME-TAX>                              336
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       505
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              505
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        
 



</TABLE>
§ 109-45.304-2 Negotiated sales and negotiated sales at fixed prices. ( a ) ( 1 ) [Reserved]
( 2 ) The head of each field organization shall designate a responsible person to approve negotiated sales by DOE direct operations.
( 3 ) Requests for prior approval of negotiated sales by DOE direct operations shall be submitted with justification to the OPMO for review and forwarding to GSA for approval.
( b ) [Reserved]
No. 10-10908.

#### Ornelas *v.*California.

Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer-tiorari denied.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:22-cv-23174-RKA Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 1:22-cv-23174-RKA Document 1-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 2 of 2
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 15 - 00058 - CV

KENNETH RAY WALDROP APPELLANT
V. TERESA WALDROP APPELLEE

---------- FROM THE 393RD DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2006

- 61054

- 393

---------- 

### CONCURRING O PINION ON EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

---------- I agree with the majority that the Contractual Maintenance provision is purely contractual and that it can be modified by further court order absent one of the four specific circumstances contained un der p aragraph one of the provision. However, instead of directing the trial court on remand to determine the criteria to be applied in making any judicial modification autho rized by the “further orders of the Court” language contained in the Contractual Maintenance provision, I would2

hold that the standard to apply in arriving at a “further order[] of the court” should
be as follows: “ Has there been a material change in Kenn eth’s circumstances that warrants a modification of the contractual maintenance payment terms? ” This standard is a lesser test than the “material and substantial change” mentioned in the trial court’s conclusion of law 8. Because the majority holds
other wise, I respectfully concur

. /s/ Bill Meier BILL MEIER JUSTICE

DELIVERED: June 7 , 2018
§ 101-5.104-3 Data requirements for feasibility studies. ( a ) The data requirements for feasibility studies may vary from program to program, but shall be standard within any single program. Such data shall disclose the costs resulting from provisions of the service on a centralized basis as compared to the same service provided separately by each occupying agency, including the costs of personnel assigned to provide the service, comparative space needs, equipment use, and any other pertinent factors.
( b ) Wherever feasible and appropriate, data will be secured directly from the prospective occupying agencies, subject to necessary verification procedures. Suitable standard formats and necessary instructions for submission of data will be prescribed in applicable subchapters of chapter 101.
( c ) Agencies required to submit data for a feasibility study will be furnished with copies of the prescribed reporting forms and such assistance as may be needed to assure their accurate and timely completion.
[30 FR 4199, Mar. 31, 1965, as amended at 56 FR 33874, July 24, 1991]
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 10, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-211

Lower Tribunal No. 16-11546CC

________________

Sabine Dessources,

Appellant,

vs.

Progressive American Ins. Co., a/s/o Alicia Barnes,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Natalie 

Moore, Judge.

Catherine A. Riggins, for appellant.

Markcity, Rothman, Cantwell & Breitner, P.A., and Mary M. Cantwell 

(Plantation), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### § 105-50.001-4 Special-purpose unit of local government.

*Special-purpose unit of local government* means any special district, public-purpose corporation, or other strictly limited-purpose political subdivision of a State, but shall not include a school district.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lawrence McMichael, Appellant.

[628 NYS2d 568]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered April 22, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant was denied his fundamental right to be present during all material stages of the trial when a prospective juror was questioned about his knowledge of a potential witness outside the defendant’s presence *(see, People v Sloan,*79 NY2d 386). Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the defendant’s presence at the side-bar questioning "would have been of no benefit” *(People v Sloan, supra,*at 392-393). Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered *(see, People v Antommarchi,*80 NY2d 247; *People v Sloan, supra).*

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
### NUMBER 13

- 15

- 00 051

- C R



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

MICHAEL HAVEY , Appellant,

v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 319 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant's third motion for extension of time to

file the brief. Appellant ’ s brief was origin ally due to be filed on April 10 , 201 5 , and this
Court has previously granted appellant t wo extensions for the filing of appellant ’ s brief in

this cause. Appellant has now requested an additional sixty days to file the brief, which2

would make the brief due on Saturday, October 1 0, 2015.
The Court, having fully examined and considered appellant's third motion for

extension of time to file the brief and the extensions previously granted in this cause, is of

the opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant's third motion for extension of time to
file the brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, looks with disfavor upon

the delay caused by counsel's failure to have filed a brief in this matter. Appellant's third

motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED , and the Honorable Coretta

Graham, counsel for appellant, is ORDERED to file the appellate brief with this Court on

or before October 1 3 , 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED IN THIS

MATTER. If counsel fails to file the brief within the specified period of time, the Court will

act appropriately to ensure that appellant's rights are protected. T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

38.8(b)(4).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 3rd day of September , 201 5

.
Cite as 2016 Ark. 12



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ARKANSAS BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS Opinion Delivered January 14, 2016

PER CURIAMChristopher May of Fayetteville is appointed to the Board of Law Examiners for a sixyear term concluding on January 13, 2022. Mr. May will be a representative of the Third Congressional District, and replaces Kirkman Dougherty whose term has concluded.P. Luevonda Ross of Monticello is appointed to the Board of Law Examiners for a sixyear term concluding on January 13, 2022. Mrs. Ross will be an at-large representative, and replaces Honorable Van Gearhart, District Court, whose term has concluded. The Court extends its sincere appreciation to Mrs. Ross and Mr. May for accepting appointment to this important Board. The Court also expresses its gratitude to Mr. Dougherty and Judge Gearhart for their dedicated service to the Board.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 744 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 744

 To rescind the consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
                                Compact.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 1999

   Mr. Sensenbrenner (for himself, Mr. Obey, Mr. Kind, Mr. Green of 
Wisconsin, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Vento, Mr. Minge, 
    Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Luther, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Ryan of 
  Wisconsin, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Petri, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. 
Goodlatte, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Manzullo, and Mr. Sessions) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To rescind the consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
                                Compact.

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

SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL RESCISSION OF NORTHEAST INTERSTATE DAIRY 
              COMPACT.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) In section 147 of the Agricultural Market Transition 
        Act (title I of Public Law 104-127; 7 U.S.C. 7256), Congress 
        gave conditional consent to the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
        Compact entered into among the States of Connecticut, Maine, 
        Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, as 
        specified in section 1(b) of Senate Joint Resolution 28 of the 
        104th Congress (as placed on the calendar of the Senate).
            (2) In section 22 of the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
        Compact, Congress expressly reserved the right to amend or 
        rescind the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact at any time.
    (b) Rescission.--Pursuant to the reservation of authority referred 
to in subsection (a)(2), Congress hereby rescinds its consent to the 
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact entered into among the States of 
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and 
Vermont.
    (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 147 of the Agricultural Market 
Transition Act (title I of Public Law 104-127; 7 U.S.C. 7256) is 
repealed.
    (d) Effective Date.--This section and the amendment made by this 
section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**MEMORANDUM**

DATE: 12/1/14 TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR

–2013
- 0602 FROM: Madonna Narvaez, R10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics SUBJECT: Various State Hub calls and Industry calls on the Proposed Plan
**SUMMARY** Over the period of July

through September 30, 2014, R10 held and or participated i n several calls with R10 states and industry to get technical clarification on the proposed plan. Prior to those calls, the states, etc. submitted lists of questions to be discussed with the technical staff. **DATES OF CALLS** 07/07/14: Discussion with Oregon PUC and ODEQ on 111(d) 07/23/14: Discussion with Oregon Energy Office on Block 3 RE questions 08/07/14: R10 Hub call with Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington 09/03/14: Call with I daho 09/08/14: Follow up call with Alaska 09/19/14: Oregon call re: Compliance 111(d) 09/22/14: Follow up technical call with Washington 09/29/14: Bonneville Power Administration met with Joe Goffman in DC
**ATTENDEES** 07/07/14: Oregon Dept of Energy , DEQ, and PUC 07/23/14: Oregon PUC, ODEQ 08/07/14: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington 09/03/14: Id aho Energy Office, IDEQ, PUC (Mike L ouis, Carl Brown, Matt Wiggs) 09/19/14: Oregon PUC, ODEQ 09/22/14: Bradley

Cebulko, Deb orah Rey

nolds, Tony

Usibelli, Bill Drumheller, Al Newman, Stu Clark Joanna Ekrem 09/29/14: HQ has List of attendees
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 23.2


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-47777, No. 333-52791, No. 333-68197 and No. 333-87103 on Form S-3 and No.
333-40393 and No. 333-59795 on Form S-8 of DAOU Systems, Inc. and in the
related Prospectus of our report dated February 13, 1998 on the financial
statements of Sentient Systems, Inc., appearing in the Annual Report on Form
10-K of DAOU Systems, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
McLean, Virginia
March 28, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 771 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 771

To amend rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to restore the 
           stenographic preference for recording depositions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1999

  Mr. Coble (for himself, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Berman, Mr. 
    Andrews, Mr. Canady of Florida, and Mr. Chabot) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to restore the 
           stenographic preference for recording depositions.

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

SECTION 1. STENOGRAPHIC PREFERENCE FOR RECORDING DEPOSITIONS.

    Paragraphs (2) and (3) of rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure are amended to read as follows:
            ``(2) Unless the court upon motion orders, or the parties 
        stipulate in writing, the deposition shall be recorded by 
        stenographic or stenomask means. The party taking the 
        deposition shall bear the cost of the transcription. Any party 
        may arrange for a transcription to be made from the recording 
        of a deposition taken by nonstenographic or nonstenomask means.
            ``(3) With prior notice to the deponent and other parties, 
        any party may use another method to record the deponent's 
        testimony in addition to the method used pursuant to paragraph 
        (2). The additional record or transcript shall be made at that 
        party's expense unless the court otherwise orders.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 12
                          AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                               (in millions)
<Table>
<Caption>
                                            Three Months          Six Months
                                            Ended June 30,       Ended June 30,
                                            2004     2003        2004      2003
 
                                       <c>        <c>        <c>      <c>
Earnings:
 Loss before income taxes                  $ (13)     $(133)     $(195)   $(1,165)

 Add:  Total fixed charges (per below)       372        378        740        761


 Less:  Interest capitalized                  19         17         36         35

   Total loss before income taxes          $ 340      $ 228      $ 509    $  (439)


Fixed charges:
 Interest, including interest capitalized  $ 162      $ 147      $ 322    $   296


 Portion of rental expense
  representative of the interest factor      207        229        413        462


 Amortization of debt expense                  3          2          5          3
    Total fixed charges                    $ 372      $ 378      $ 740    $   761


Coverage deficiency                        $  32      $ 150      $ 231    $ 1,200
</Table>

Note:As  of  June 30, 2004, American has guaranteed approximately  $1.3
     billion  of AMR's unsecured debt and approximately $484 million  of  AMR
     Eagle's  secured debt.  The impact of these unconditional guarantees  is
     not included in the above computation.