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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,567
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         358,361
<DEPRECIATION>                                  46,907
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 331,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        178,004
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     136,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   331,954
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,458<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,998
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,177
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,177
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (831)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,346
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.37
<FN>
<F1>Depreciation & Amortization
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS      PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 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 result of operations of the                Company. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/Mark              R. Newburg                                                    |   | Dated:                  March 30, 2006 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Mark                R. Newburg                                                     |   |                                   |
| Title: | Chief                Executive Officer, Principal Executive                Officer |

| By:    | /s/Arnaldo              F. Galassi                                |   | Dated:                  March 30, 2006 |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Arnaldo                F. Galassi                                 |   |                                   |
| Title: | Chief                Financial Officer of VendingData Corporation |

----
705-/5"

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 07-13-00286-CR OFFENSE: 38.04

Sammy Vidales v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Lubbock

AFFIRMED, REVERSED

COA DISPOSITION: & REMANDED TRIAL COURT: 137th District Court

DATE: 7/7/2015 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 2012-436,579

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Sammy Vidales v. The State of Texas CCA#: 10S-IS

SPA\5

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE

JUDGE: Afffo .UjhuZ-^.

FOR DISCRETIONARYREVIEW

Tfi ~^f.Fui&)) pATP tpJ(T7 /tot?

JUDGE

Petition CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
§ 301-71.207 What internal policies and procedures must we establish for travel reimbursement? You must establish policies and procedures governing: ( a ) Who are the proper officials to review, approve, and certify travel claims (including travel claims requiring special authorization);
( b ) How an employee should submit a travel claim (including whether to use a standard form or an agency form and whether the form should be written or electronic);
( c ) When you will exempt employees from the requirement for a receipt;
( d ) Timeframes for employee to submit a claim (see § 301-52.7);
( e ) Timeframe for agency to pay a claim (see § 301-71.204);
( f ) Process for disallowing a claim; and
( g ) Process for resolving a disallowed claim.
Tuesday 14th 

 September, 2004. 

In Re: Wendell Wilson, Petitioner. 

 Record No. 1739-04-2 

Upon a Petition for a Writ of Actual Innocence 

Before Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Elder and Humphreys 

 Wendell Wilson petitions this Court for a Writ of Actual Innocence pursuant to Chapter 19.3 of 

Title 19.2 of the Code of Virginia. He contends he is innocent of two crimes for which he was convicted 

in the Circuit Court of the City of Colonial Heights in 1997, to-wit, CR96-112-01 and CR96-112-02. 

 We do not have the authority to issue a writ in this matter. The documentation accompanying 

Wilson’s petition reveals that he pled guilty to the charges pursuant to a plea agreement. Code 

§ 19.2-327.10 reads in pertinent part: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law or rule of court, 

upon a petition of a person who was convicted of a felony upon a plea of not guilty, the Court of 

Appeals shall have the authority to issue writs of actual innocence under this chapter.” (Emphasis 

added.) Accordingly, we summarily dismiss the petition. 

 Because the issue addressed herein is one of first impression and potential litigants and members 

of the bar may benefit from the directives herein, we direct the Clerk to publish this order. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

 Clerk
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00347

- CV

Y. A. , Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- GM

- 20

- 002618 , THE HONORABLE CATHERINE MA UZY , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM The reporter’s record in this appeal was originally due to be filed on June 16,
2022

. To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed.
A ny extensions of time granted for the filing of the reporters’ reco r ds may not exceed 30 days cumulatively. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(2). Accordingly, Leah Hayes is
he reby ordered to file the reporter’s record in this case on or before July 18, 2022 . If the record is not filed by that date, Hay e s may be required to s h ow cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.
It is ordere d on July 1 4 , 2 022

.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, J ustices Triana and Smith
# Comments on: 17-2599: RDA CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential
# AGENCY:

 Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice/City of Atwater

# SUMMARY:

 Notice Is Hereby Given regarding the availability of a Joint Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) for public review at the City of Atwater Planning Department, located at 750 Bellevue Road, Atwater, California 95301, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/EA is also available through the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 500 First Street NW, Washington DC 20534 in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

A Negative Declaration, filed by the Planning Department in conformance with CEQA, along with  the Joint IS/EA may be reviewed at the City during normal business hours (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM) for a 30 day review period commencing on January 20, 2000.

The proposed project will extend municipal water and sewer services from the City of Atwater to the United States Penitentiary at the Castle Airport and Aviation Development Center. Given that the proposed project involves federal, state and local agencies, a joint CEQA/NEPA environmental document has been prepared. 

All interested parties should review the document and provide written comments to the City of Atwater Planning Department (Attention: Mo Khatami, Planning and Redevelopment Director) no later than February 22, 2000.  A separate Planning Commission public hearing notice will be issued by the City to provide an opportunity for interested parties to give oral comments.

Questions concerning the action can also be answered by: David J. Dorworth, 5stChief, Site Selection and Environmental Review Branch, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW, Washington, DC  20534, Telephone (202) 514-6470, Telefacsimile (202) 616-6024, ddorworth@BOP.gov.

Dated: January 18, 2000.

David J. Dorworth,

Chief, Site Selection and Environmental Review Branch.

[FR Doc. 00-1617  Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING  CODE 4410-05-U
asset_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1
 
RESOLUTION OF THE SHAREHOLDERS
 
OF
 
ASSET SOLUTIONS INC.
 
The following is a true copy of the resolution duly adopted by the Majority of the Shareholders of the Corporation at a special meeting, notice to this meeting having been waived, held this 18th day of January, 2017; 
 
WHEREAS there has been presented to and considered by this meeting a Motion to effectuate a new Board of Directors of the Company; 
 
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the majority of shareholders having considered this matter, and having opened the floor to all those who voice a preference in the issue and pursuant to NRS 78.320, have overwhelmingly decided and RESOLVED that we have elected: 
 
ANTONIO TREMINIO as Director & CEO
DAVID E. PRICE as Secretary
 
The Above qualified people have been nominated, and have accepted their position as DIRECTORS and OFFICERS of the Company. 
 
Said Motion is hereby passed and the corporate books, records and the Company shall file this Resolution in the corporate records. 
 
Dated: 18th January, 2017
 
/s/ Young Hua Song
Young Hua Song, 
on behalf of First Legacy Management LLC., Majority Shareholders
#### Morgan v. The Commonwealth.

June Term, 1850.

Indictments—Sale of Ardent Spirits—Charging Offence in Disjunctive'.*—In an indictment for retailing ardent spirits without a license, to be drank where sold, it is not error to use the word “or” in speaking of the various kinds of spirituous liquors charged to have been sold.

At the March term for 1848, of the Circuit court- of Chesterfield county, Peter K. Morgan was indicted, for that he, on the 15th of February 1848, at the county &c., without a license, did sell by retail, to be drank in his house, rum, wine, brandy or other spirituous liquors, to be drank where sold, &c.

The- defendant demurred to the indictment, on the ground that the charges were laid in the disjunctive: But the Court overruled the demurrer. The defendant then pleaded “not guilty,” and on the trial demurrer to the evidence; and the Commonwealth joined in the demurrer. Whereupon the jury found a verdict of guilty, subject to the demurrer to evidence.

*The evidence consisted of the testimony of a single witness, who deposed, that on the 15th of February 1848, he and John Perry drank spirits at the house of the defendant; which said spirits were called for by Perry, and by him paid for; the purchase having been made of, and the payment made to, the defendant.

The Court gave judgment upon the demurrer to evidence, against the defendant, for a fine of 30 dollars and the costs, Whereupon he applied to this Court for a writ of error, which was allowed.

Day, for the appellant.

The Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

*

Indictments—Sale of Ardent Spirits—Charging Of-fence in the Disjunctive,—Several cases cite and reaffirm the- proposition of the principal case, that it is not error to charge the offence of selling spirituous liquors, wines, etc., without a license, in the disjunctive instead of the con j unctive, by using the word “or” in lieu of “and” in describing the various kinds of liquors and drinks charged in the indictment to have been sold without a license. See Thomas v. Com., 00 Va. 93, 17 S. E. Rep. 788; Cunningham v. State, 5 W. Va. 509; State v. Charlton, *11W.*Va. 336-7. But, in this last case, the court said; “It *(l e.,*the decision of the principal case) ought not to be regarded as overthrowing the general rule, that an indictment ought not to state the case disjunctively, when it is thereby left uncertain, what is really intended to be relied on as the accusation. And while *Morgan's Case*must govern us whenever a case like 'it arises, yet we cannot safely extend it to cases which differ from it and fall within this general rule.” See, further, monographic mofe on “Indictments, Informations and Presentments” appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674; monographic *note*on “Intoxicating Liquors" appended to Thon V. Com., 31 Gratt. 887.

By the Court.

The judgment is affirmed.
No. 11-9265.

#### Flores *v.*United States.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

          - 5 CFR Part 630 
          - RIN 3206-AI35 

# AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management. 

# ACTION:

Correction to final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

The Office of Personnel Management inadvertently deleted the last two sentences of § 630.1207, paragraph (j). This document corrects this error. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

June 7, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Jo Ann Perrini, (202) 606-2858, FAX (202) 606-0824, or email to                         *payleave@opm.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Accordingly, page 26487, first column, § 630.1207(j) of the final rule published on May 8, 2000, is corrected to read as follows: 

§ 630.1207

* * * * *

                            (j) At its own expense, an agency may require subsequent medical recertification on a periodic basis, but not more than once every 30 calendar days, for leave taken for purposes relating to pregnancy, chronic conditions, or long-term conditions, as these terms are used in the definition of                             *serious health condition*                             in § 630.1202. For leave taken for all other serious health conditions and including leave taken on an intermittent or reduced leave schedule, if the health care provider has specified on the medical certification a minimum duration of the period of incapacity, the agency may not request recertification until that period has passed. An agency may require subsequent medical recertification more frequently than every 30 calendar days, or more frequently than the minimum duration of the period of incapacity specified on the medical certification, if the employee requests that the original leave period be extended, the circumstances described in the original medical certification have changed significantly, or the agency receives information that casts doubt upon the continuing validity of the medical certification.                         

* * * * *

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

Janice R. Lachance, 

Director.

[FR Doc. 00-15642 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325-01-P
### IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON^ t/,S STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, C_ —(_« cr 'o •z. s^-'iDIVISION ONE CO No. 73837-2-1 3C v£» o^' UNPUBLISHED OPINION

_— RENO DUANE DOOLITTLE, Appellant. FILED: June 13, 2016
PerCuriam. Reno Doolittle appeals the order ofrestitution entered 

### following his guilty plea to fourth degree assault but does not appeal the 

### underlyingjudgment and sentence. He contends, and the State concedes, that the record does not contain sufficient reliable evidence to supportthe restitution amount, and that he is entitled to a new restitution hearing at which the State 

### must present such evidence. We accept the concession oferror and remand for further proceedings consistentwith this opinion. Doolittle's statement ofadditional grounds for review raises claims that are 

### eitherbeyond the scope of review ofthe restitution order or are barred by his 

### guilty plea. See State v. Gaut, 111 Wn. App. 875, 880, 46 P.3d 832 (2002) (where post-trial order, notjudgmentand sentence, is the order appealed, challenges tojudgment and sentence are beyond the scope of review; guilty plea waives the right to appeal the finding of guilt).Remanded for proceedings consistentwith this opinion. For the court: 

# \ \^-y- l~ |f\ (Msq^ n IJ l±a-
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls
o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :
A1 7 E0 03 5 . MAYS v

. THE STATE.

Th e ap p el l an t ’ s m ot io n fo r o u t -o f-t i m e ap p l i cat i o n f or di s cret io n ary ap p eal fro m t h e d en i al o f a m o t i o n t o s et as id e a ju d g m en t i s h ereb y DENIED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m
t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 

## February 14, 2017

02/14/2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             681
<SECURITIES>                                       265
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,846
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,059
<INVENTORY>                                        418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,719
<PP&E>                                          51,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,603
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 204,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,410
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,261
<OTHER-SE>                                      96,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   204,778
<SALES>                                        148,571
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,571
<CGS>                                          119,228
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,228
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,585
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 703
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,064
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,123
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,705
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,705
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08


</TABLE>
46961.

#### BAILEY v. THE STATE.

(380 SE2d 264)

Marshall, Chief Justice.

This Court affirmed the conviction of Andy E. Bailey of murder and his life sentence on direct appeal. *Bailey v. State,*255 Ga. 57 (335 SE2d 108) (1985). His state habeas corpus proceeding, which alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, was filed by his fourth counsel; one counsel withdrew, he fired a second counsel, and he then proceeded pro se. His petition for state habeas relief was denied and this Court denied his certificate of probable cause to appeal therefrom in 1987. The trial court — giving “consideration to the fact that the defendant was tried and found guilty of murder, the appellate court affirmed his conviction, and the applicable law” — denied his “motion for supersedeas bond pending post-conviction relief,” from which ruling Bailey seeks to appeal.

1. The ruling sought to be appealed — the denial of a motion for supersedeas bond pending post-conviction relief — is not directly appealable under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a), and has not been certified for immediate review under subsection (b) of that statute.

*341Decided June 23, 1989

Reconsideration denied July 13, 1989.

Andy E. Bailey, *pro se.*

*Stephen F. Lanier, District Attorney,*for appellee.

2. The appellant has filed with this Court the following motions: (1) to have sent to this Court his complete trial transcript, alleging that when he turned over his transcript to habeas corpus counsel after his direct appeal, he discovered that photographs had been removed and the transcript altered; (2) for discovery, under *Brady v. Maryland,*373 U. S. 83 (83 SC 1194, 10 LE2d 215) (1963); (3) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; (4) for oral argument; (5) for supersedeas bond pending appeal; (6) for appointment of counsel; (7) for appointment of a special investigator; (8) for his state habeas corpus transcript and court reporter’s materials to be sent to this Court.

We construe this as a direct application to this Court for a writ of mandamus, which is controlled by *Brown v. Johnson,*251 Ga. 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983). We note that the appellant was not entitled to a copy of his criminal-trial transcript and related documents to assist him in preparing a pro se petition for habeas corpus. *Judge v. State,*255 Ga. 174 (338 SE2d 282) (1985).

*Appeal dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*