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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,833,514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,810
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,876,316
<PP&E>                                          97,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,875
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,973,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          908,719
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,813
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,522,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,973,440
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  658,285
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (643,760)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (643,760)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.55)


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### International Trade Administration 

# AGENCY:

International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce invites U.S. companies to participate in the following overseas trade missions. For a more complete description of the trade mission, obtain a copy of the mission statement from the Project Officer indicated below. The recruitment and selection of private sector participants for these missions will be conducted according to the Statement of Policy Governing Department of Commerce Overseas Trade Missions announced by Secretary Daley on March 3, 1997.

Clean Energy Trade Mission 

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic 

September 28-October 5, 2000 

Recruitment closes August 5, 2000

For further information contact: Andy Collier, U.S. Department of Commerce, Tel: 202-482-0680, Fax: 202-482-3352, E-Mail: Andrew_Collier@ita.doc.gov.

Franchising Trade Mission 

Malaysia, the Philippines, and South Korea 

September 28-October 6, 2000 

Recruitment closes August 15, 2000

For further information contact: Raj Dwivedy, U.S. Department of Commerce, Tel: 202-482-1135, Fax: 202-482-2669, E-Mail: Raj_Dwivedy@ita.doc.gov.

Medical Device Trade Mission to India 

New Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai 

February 4-11, 2001 

Recruitment closes December 15, 2000

For further information contact: Michael Andrews, U.S. Department of Commerce Tel: 202-482-2795, Fax: 202-482-0975, E-Mail: Michael_Andrews@ita.doc.gov.

For further information contact Reginald Beckham, U.S. Department of Commerce. Tel: 202-482-5478, Fax: 202-482-1999.

Dated: June 22, 2000.

Tom Nisbet, 

Director, Promotion Planning and Support Division, Office of Export Promotion Coordination.

[FR Doc. 00-16274 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
# Comments on: 21-2113: In Re KILLIAN [OPINION], Precedential
§ 302-11.300 Is there a limit on how much my agency will reimburse me for residence transactions? Yes, your agency will reimburse you no more than: ( a ) Ten percent of the actual sales price for the sale of your residence at the old official station; and
( b ) Five percent of the actual purchase price of the residence for the purchase of a residence at the new official station.
EXHIBIT 23.2



             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements of ESC Medical Systems LTD. on
Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-6610, 333-8056 and 333-9256) and on Form S-8 (File
No. 333-6774) of our report dated February 10, 1999 relating to the
consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.


Luboshitz Kasierer
Certified Public Accountants
Member Firm of Arthur Andersen

Haifa, Israel
March 30, 2000
§ 105-68.345 What happens if I fail to disclose information required under § 105-68.335? If we later determine that you failed to disclose information under § 105-68.335 that you knew at the time you entered into the covered transaction, we may— ( a ) Terminate the transaction for material failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the transaction; or
( b ) Pursue any other available remedies, including suspension and debarment.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Section
      1350**


**CERTIFICATION**








The
      undersigned officer hereby certifies
      that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of COMFORCE
      Corporation for the quarter endedSeptember 30,
      2007 as to which this Certification is
      an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the
      information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE
      Corporation.





SignedNovember
      7,2007.








/s/
              John C. FanningJohn
                C. Fanning,Chairman
                and Chief Executive Officer
1996 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-17-1996

Fowler v. US Parole Comm

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 95-5226

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1996 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Fowler v. US Parole Comm" (1996). 1996 Decisions. Paper 67.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1996/67
 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

 

 No. 95-5226 

 

 KEVIN FOWLER, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

 UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, 

 Appellee. 

 

 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

 (D.C. Civ. No. 95-cv-00754) 

 District Judge: Honorable Clarkson S. Fisher 

 

 

 Argued: February 8, 1996 

 Before: BECKER, ROTH and McKEE, Circuit Judges 

 (Filed September 4, 1996) 

 

 ORDER AMENDING OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 

 

 

 Upon reviewing the submission of counsel for appellee, 

United States Parole Commission, it is hereby ordered that the 

opinion filed in this case on September 4, 1996, be amended as 

follows: 

 1. The first sentence of the opinion on page 2 which reads 

"Defendant-appellant Kevin Fowler appeals from an order of the 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey 

denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 

2255." is to be deleted and replaced with the following: 

"Defendant-appellant Kevin Fowler appeals from an order of the 

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey 

denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 

2241."; 

 2. The first sentence of the last paragraph of page 3 of the 
opinion which reads "We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2255 and 1291." is to be deleted and replaced with the 

following: "We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 

and 1291." 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 By the Court: 

 /s/ Theodore A. McKee 

 McKee, Circuit Judge 

 

DATED: September 17, 1996
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15827]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Chemical and Transport Systems; Notice 
of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Chemical and Transport Systems 
(1190).
    Dates/Time: July 14, 2000; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 1295, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Maria K. Burka, Program Director, Division 
of Chemical and Transport Systems, Room 525, National Science 
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 
306-1371.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations for the FY 2000 New 
Technologies for the Environment proposals as part of the selection 
process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposal being reviewed includes 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data; such as salaries, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: June 19, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-15827 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 126 (Thursday, June 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16480]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Die Products Consortium (DPC)

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 31, 2000, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Die Products Consortium (DPC) has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership 
status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the 
Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Agilent 
Technologies, Inc., Palo Alto, CA; and IBM, Armonk, NY have been added 
as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Die Products Consortium (DPC) 
intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On November 15, 1999, Die Products Consortium (DPC) filed its 
original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. A notice has 
not yet been published in the Federal Register.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-16480 Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

JOSE A. DELACRUZ,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2022-2116

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 20-5631, Judge William S. Greenberg.

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

In response to the court’s September 21, 2022, order to 

show cause as to why this court has jurisdiction over this 

appeal, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs urges dismissal. 

Jose A. DeLaCruz also responds. 

On October 22, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims entered judgment in Mr. DeLaCruz’s appeal (CAVC No. 20-5631). On July 29, 2022, Mr. 

Case: 22-2116 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 12/13/2022
2 DELACRUZ v. MCDONOUGH

DeLaCruz filed the Veterans Court’s standard notice of appeal form indicating that he was seeking to appeal to the 

Veterans Court from an order of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals entered on July 18, 2022. The Veterans Court, however, construed the submission as an appeal from its

October 22, 2021, judgment in CAVC No. 20-5631 and 

transferred the appeal to this court. 

We agree with the Secretary that “it is clear from Mr. 

DeLaCruz’s notice of appeal that he is not challenging the 

October 22, 2021, judgment of the Veterans Court,” and 

that his submission should have instead been construed by 

the Veterans Court as a “timely . . . appeal to the Veterans 

Court from a July 18, 2022[,] decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.” Res. at 1–2.* Because Mr. DeLaCruz was 

not intending to seek this court’s review, we dismiss and 

instruct the Clerk of this Court to transmit this order to 

the Veterans Court, so that it can docket Mr. DeLaCruz’s 

notice of appeal, initially docketed in CAVC No. 20-5631,

as a new appeal from the Board’s July 18, 2022, decision. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

* As the Secretary notes, this court would have

lacked jurisdiction over an appeal from the Veterans 

Court’s October 22, 2021, judgment because no notice of appeal was filed within 60 days from the date of filing of that 

judgment. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); see also 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); cf. Henderson v. 

Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011) (noting that 

§ 7292(a) imposes a jurisdictional requirement). 

Case: 22-2116 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 12/13/2022
DELACRUZ v. MCDONOUGH 3

(3) The Clerk of Court is instructed to transmit this 

order to the Veterans Court, so that it can docket Mr. DeLaCruz’s notice (initially docketed in CAVC No. 20-5631)

as a new appeal from the Board’s July 18, 2022, decision. 

December 13, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

cc: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Case: 22-2116 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 12/13/2022
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 21.1

                 Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries of the Company
                        (without regard to significance)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                                   JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
<S>                                                    <C>    
ICVerify, Inc.                                         Delaware
ICVerify GmbH                                          Germany
EZCharge, Inc.                                         Maryland
CyberCash India Private Limited                        India
Reston Parkway I, Inc.                                 Delaware
Reston Parkway II, Inc.                                Delaware
CyberCash International C.V.                           The Netherlands
CC International B.V.                                  The Netherlands
CyberCash Japan C.V.                                   The Netherlands
CyberCash K.K.                                         Japan
CyberCash Asia Limited                                 Hong Kong
CyberCash GmbH                                         Germany
CyberCash (UK) Limited                                 United Kingdom
</TABLE>
No. 11-9562.

No. 11-9593.

No. 11-9596.

No. 11-9599.

No. 11-9606.

No. 11-9618.

#### In re Harp; In re Jackson; In re O'Bryant; In re Baca; In re DeCarlo; and In re Wheeler.

Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20138 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JAMES CLARENCE BLACKWELL Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-407-ALL Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, James Clarence Blackwell presents arguments that he concedes are f oreclosed by U nited States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). Appellant’s motion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 8, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
#### § 301-2.4 For what travel expenses am I responsible?

You are responsible for expenses over the reimbursement limits established in this chapter. Your agency will not pay for excess costs resulting from circuitous routes, delays, or luxury accommodations or services unnecessary or unjustified in the performance of official business. Failure to provide sufficient justification to your approving official for such accommodations or services will limit your reimbursement to the constructive cost of the amount authorized versus the amount claimed.

[FTR Amdt. 70, 63 FR 15955, Apr. 1, 1998, as amended by FTR Case 2020-300-1, 87 FR 55702, Sept. 12, 2022]
# Comments on: Clerk’s Office Operating Status for August 28, 2020
Exhibit 31.4








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jay C. Horgen, certify that:





|   |                                                                                          
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.







Date: April 1, 2019





/s/ JAY C. HORGENJay C. HorgenPresident, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

MYRON GIBBS,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ 

§ No. 193, 2018

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID No. 0911008893 (N)

§

§

§

 Submitted: April 26, 2018

 Decided: June 8, 2018

Before VALIHURA, VAUGHN, and SEITZ, Justices.

O R D E R

This 8th day of June 2018, after careful consideration of the appellant’s 

opening brief, the appellee’s motion to affirm,1and the record below, we conclude

that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of the Superior Court’s 

order adopting the Commissioner’s well-reasoned report and recommendation dated 

February 28, 2018.

2

 The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the appellant’s 

third motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred and did not satisfy the 

pleading requirements of Superior Court Criminal Rule 61(d)(2). 

 

1 On May 17, 2018, the appellant filed a motion for leave to respond to the motion to affirm. Under 

Supreme Court Rule 25(a), a response to a motion to affirm is not permitted unless requested by 

the Court. The Court did not request a response to the motion to affirm and finds no reason to 

request a response after considering the appellant's motion.

2

State v. Gibbs, 2018 WL 1110429 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 28, 2018).
2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that motion to affirm is GRANTED 

and the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James T. Vaughn, Jr.

Justice
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439

PETER R. MARKSTEINER CLERK’S OFFICE

CLERK OF COURT 202-275-8000

October 4, 2018

New Argument Notices and Available Argument-Related Resources

Effective October 22, 2018, the Clerk’s Office will begin issuing revised 

versions of its notices for cases scheduled for oral argument, for cases 

submitted without oral argument, and for counsel to advise of 

scheduling conflicts for oral argument. 

Beginning that date, counsel will need to submit responses to the 

Notice of Oral Argument and the Notice to Submit Scheduling 

Conflicts in CM/ECF using the following new forms and related filing 

events: Response to Notice of Oral Argument and Response to Notice to 

Advise of Scheduling Conflicts. Responses submitted on or after this 

date without the proper forms may be issued Notices of NonCompliance by the Clerk’s Office with required resubmission using the 

appropriate new form.

These new response forms and related changes in CM/ECF should 

provide greater clarity and ease to litigants in submitting necessary 

materials to the Clerk’s Office in advance of argument.

The Clerk’s Office has also developed a new Oral Argument Guide to 

assist litigants and counsel in preparing for, and participating in, oral 

argument before the Federal Circuit. A preview of this document is 

available online, which will be available on October 22, 2018 under a 

new Argument Resources menu on the court’s website under the 

Argument tab.

For questions or comments on these changes, please contact the Court 

Services team at 202-275-8035.