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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 25, 2000 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 25, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-27-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-2000
<CASH>                                           6,225
<SECURITIES>                                     7,086
<RECEIVABLES>                                      869
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        971
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,012
<PP&E>                                          42,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,264)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  52,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,808
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,079
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,185
<SALES>                                         23,462
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,462
<CGS>                                            6,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,515
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (22)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,168
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (467)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                701
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       701
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
# Comments on: Updated Federal Circuit Rules of Practice
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

LAWRENCE WILLIAMS , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 1863

[ December 14, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Samantha Schosberg Feuer , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2014

- CF

- 002167

- AXXX

- MB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allen R. Gees ey, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

G ERBER , C.J., C IKLIN and L EVINE , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4307 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4307

To amend title 35, United States Code, with respect to applications for 
                            process patents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 1994

Mr. Hughes (for himself, Mr. Moorhead, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. 
  Boucher, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Fish, and Mr. Coble) introduced the 
  following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 35, United States Code, with respect to applications for 
                            process patents.

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

SECTION 1. EXAMINATION OF PROCESS PATENT APPLICATIONS FOR OBVIOUSNESS.

    Section 103 of title 35, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by designating the first paragraph as subsection (a);
            (2) by designating the second paragraph as subsection (c); 
        and
            (3) by inserting after the first paragraph the following:
    ``(b)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a process using or 
resulting in a product that is novel under section 102 and nonobvious 
under subsection (a) of this section, shall be considered nonobvious 
if--
            ``(A) claims to the process and the product are contained 
        in either the same application for patent or in separate 
        applications having the same effective filing date; and
            ``(B) the product, and the process at the time it was 
        invented, were owned by the same person or subject to an 
        obligation of assignment to the same person.
    ``(2) A patent issued on a process under paragraph (1)--
            ``(A) shall also contain the claims to the product used in 
        or made by that process, or
            ``(B) shall, if such product is claimed in another patent, 
        be set to expire on the same date as such other patent.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 shall apply to any application for 
patent filed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act and to 
any application for patent pending on such date of enactment, including 
(in either case) an application for the reissuance of a patent.

                                 <all>
```
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.403 Notice and availability.

All petitions for rulemaking (other than petitions to amend the FM, Television, and Air-Ground Tables of Assignments) meeting the requirements of § 1.401 will be given a file number and, promptly thereafter, a “Public Notice” will be issued (by means of a Commission release entitled “Petitions for Rule Making Filed”) as to the petition, file number, nature of the proposal, and date of filing. Petitions for rulemaking are available through the Commission's Reference Information Center at the FCC's main office, and may also be available electronically at *https://www.fcc.gov/.*

[85 FR 64405, Oct. 13, 2020, as amended at 88 FR 21433, Apr. 10, 2023]
13 April 2016

402P11-8

#### State v. Sylvester Eugene Harding, III

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Petition for Extraordinary Writ as to the All Writ Act of 1789

1. Dismissed 04/13/2016

2. Defs *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Habeas Coipus*

2. Denied 04/13/2016

3. Defs *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

3. Dismissed 04/13/2016
No. 11-9282.

#### Escue *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari 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.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities

# AGENCY:

National Endowment for the Arts.

# ACTION:

Notification of availability. 

# SUMMARY:

The National Endowment for the Arts is requesting proposals leading to one (1) award of a Cooperative Agreement to a nonprofit organization for continued management of ArtsLink. ArtsLink is a public-private partnership that offers opportunities for artistic exchange between the United States and the countries of Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union. The project awards grants to U.S. artists and arts organizations, and supports residencies. The work includes managing all phases of proposal review, artists and residency placements, and the financial award process, including the management of logistical arrangements for residencies, in regard to participants' arrival, lodging, and transfer to host organization locations. The successful recipient of the Cooperative Agreement will be expected to contribute matching funds of at least $75,000. Those interested in receiving the Solicitation package should reference Program Solicitation PS 00-07 in their written request and include two (2) self-addressed labels. Verbal requests for the Solicitation will not be honored. It is anticipated that the Program Solicitation will also be posted on the Endowment's Web site at http://www.arts.gov.

# DATES:

Program Solicitation PS 00-07 is scheduled for release approximately July 17, 2000 with proposals due on August 17, 2000.

# ADDRESSES:

Requests for the Solicitation should be addressed to the National Endowment for the Arts, Grants & Contracts Office, Room 618, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20506.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Hummel, Grants & Contracts Office, National Endowment for the Arts, Room 618, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20506 (202/682-5482).

William I. Hummel,

Coordinator, Cooperative Agreements.

[FR Doc. 00-16487 Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 1, 2016

d0628

Order 

Clerk

July 1, 2016

153953 & (17)

MARK P. DONALDSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 153953

COA: 333210

Roscommon CC: 15-722718-AA;

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 15-722726-AA

HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the June 17, 2016 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for stay is DENIED.
#### Albert Gentile *vs.*Americo Vecchio.

APRIL 18, 1962.

Present: Condon, C. J., Roberts, Paolino, Powers and Frost, JJ.

*273Erost, J.

This action at law is before the court on the plaintiff’s exceptions to the decision of a justice of the superior court sustaining defendant’s demurrer to each of the three counts of the plaintiff’s third amended declaration.

From the declaration it appears that defendant was one of the owners of a house and lot located at No. 15 Plymouth Road in the town of North Providence and that on May 21, 1958 plaintiff was in his employ.

It appears in the first count that it was the duty of the plaintiff to climb a certain tree on the said lot and cut off one of the higher limbs; that it was the duty of defendant to warn plaintiff that one of the limbs was rotten and decayed in sections thereof that were not visible and apparent to plaintiff or to any other person of ordinary intelligence or experience since plaintiff was a truck driver and had had no previous experience in the cutting of tree limbs.

It is alleged that defendant knew that the tree was rotten and decayed and that it was his duty to warn plaintiff of the danger and that, “the defendant disregarding this duty conducted himself carelessly, negligently, and willfully in *274that he failed to disclose to the plaintiff a hidden danger namely, the decayed and rotten limb which the plaintiff was told to saw off, for the purpose of lowering the tree and not for the purpose of pruning the tree of a rotten and decayed limb.” The count further states that while plaintiff was cutting the limb and while in the exercise of due care it broke off, fell against him and threw him to the ground.

*George Ajootian,*for plaintiff.

*Gunning & LaFasia, Raymond A. LaFazia, Edward L. Gnys, Jr., Bruce M. Selya,*for defendant.

A reading of the first count makes clear that plaintiff nowhere alleges that defendant knew that the limb which broke off was decayed; therefore there was no duty to warn of the existence of a defect of which he, defendant, was not conscious.

In the second count the duty to warn which was alleged in the first count is repeated. In addition plaintiff alleges a duty to furnish safety devices and other equipment. The count is clearly duplicitous and in addition it does not allege that the injury to plaintiff was due to the negligence of defendant in not furnishing certain equipment such as safety ropes.

As to the third count it appears that the plaintiff relies upon three distinct acts of negligence on the part of defendant, namely, a failure to warn, a failure to provide safety appliances and on the assurance of the defendant that it was safe for the plaintiff to continue cutting the limb of the tree which eventually broke off and struck the plaintiff. The count is clearly duplicitous.

The plaintiff’s exceptions are overruled, and the case is remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.
# Comments on: 23-1510: CHIN-YOUNG v. ARMY [OPINION], Nonprecedential
Exhibit 32.2











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


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 of Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




















s/Marliss D. Johnson


Marliss D. Johnson


Vice President, Controller and Treasurer


November 5, 2010
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

HENRY F. RATLIFF,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2021-1618

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 19-6568, Judge Joseph L. Toth.

______________________ 

Decided: February 18, 2022

______________________ 

MEGHAN GENTILE, Veterans Legal Advocacy Group, Arlington, VA, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by HAROLD HAMILTON HOFFMAN, III. 

 SARAH E. KRAMER, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, MARTIN F.

HOCKEY, JR.; EVAN SCOTT GRANT, Y. KEN LEE, Office of 

Case: 21-1618 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 02/18/2022
2 RATLIFF v. MCDONOUGH

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC. 

 ______________________ 

Before HUGHES, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Henry Ratliff appeals a decision of the Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims. The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, denying Mr. Ratliff’s claims for disability compensation due to tinnitus. On 

appeal, Mr. Ratliff argues that the Veterans Court misapplied its own precedent regarding credibility determinations and erred in making its harmless error 

determination. Because Mr. Ratliff’s arguments both involve an application of law to fact, they are beyond our jurisdiction to consider. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2); King v. 

Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

No costs.

Case: 21-1618 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 02/18/2022
Exhibit 32.1

Section 1350

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officer hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of COMFORCE Corporation for the quarter ended March 26, 2006 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.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|Signed May 5, 2006.                 
|                                    
|/s/ John C. Fanning                 
|John C. Fanning,                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



23
#### § 0.471 Miscellaneous submittals or requests.

Persons desiring to make submittals or requests of a general nature should communicate with the Secretary of the Commission.

[36 FR 15121, Aug. 13, 1971]
Order entered June 2 7 , 201 9

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 17

- 01270

- CV

REGINA DELL BROWN AN D GWENDOLYN GABRIEL, Appellant s

V.

MERRY OUTLAW, Appellee

On Appeal fr om the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 06513



### O RDER

We GRANT John D. Nation’s March 19, 2019 unopposed Motion to Withdraw as

Counsel for appellant Gwendolyn Gabriel. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court (1) to r emove

Mr. Nation as counsel for Ms. Gabriel in this cause number and (2) to send future

communications in th is case to Ms. Gabriel at 1160 South Joe Wilson, Cedar Hill , Texas 75104.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.1118 Penalty for late or insufficient payments. ( a ) Filings subject to fees and accompanied by defective fee submissions will be dismissed under § 1.1111 (d) of this subpart where the defect is discovered by the Commission's staff within 30 calendar days from the receipt of the application or filing by the Commission. ( 1 ) A defective fee may be corrected by resubmitting the application or other filing, together with the entire correct fee.
( 2 ) For purposes of determining whether the filing is timely, the date of resubmission with the correct fee will be considered the date of filing. However, in cases where the fee payment fails due to error of the applicant's bank, as evidenced by an affidavit of an officer of the bank, the date of the original submission will be considered the date of filing.
( b ) Applications or filings accompanied by insufficient fees or no fees, or where such applications or filings are made by persons or organizations that are delinquent in fees owed to the Commission, that are inadvertently forwarded to Commission staff for substantive review will be billed for the amount due if the discrepancy is not discovered until after 30 calendar days from the receipt of the application or filing by the Commission. Applications or filings that are accompanied by insufficient fees or no fees will have a penalty charge equaling 25 percent of the amount due added to each bill. Any Commission action taken prior to timely payment of these charges is contingent and subject to rescission.
( c ) Applicants to whom a deferral of payment is granted under the terms of this subsection will be billed for the amount due plus a charge equalling 25 percent of the amount due. Any Commission actions taken prior to timely payment of these charges are contingent and subject to rescission.
( d ) Failure to submit fees, following notice to the applicant of failure to submit the required fee, is subject to collection of the fee, including interest thereon, any associated penalties, and the full cost of collection to the Federal government pursuant to the provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), Public Law 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, 1358 (Apr. 26, 1996), codified at 31 U.S.C. 3711 *et seq. See* 47 CFR 1.1901 through 1.1952. The debt collection processes described above may proceed concurrently with any other sanction in this paragraph.
[52 FR 5289, Feb. 20, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 40889, Oct. 19, 1988; 55 FR 19172, May 8, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 59 FR 30998, June 16, 1994. Redesignated at 60 FR 5326, Jan. 27, 1995, as amended at 67 FR 67337, Nov. 5, 2002; 69 FR 41177, July 7, 2004; 69 FR 27847, May 17, 2004; 69 FR 41177, July 7, 2004. Redesignated and amended at 74 FR 3445, Jan. 21, 2009] Editorial Note
Editorial Note: At 69 FR 57230, Sept. 24, 2004, § 1.1116(a) introductory text was corrected by changing the reference to “§ 1.1109(b)” to read “§ 1.1109(d)”; however, the amendment could not be incorporated because that reference does not exist in the paragraph.
Order entered April 15, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00325-CV

IN RE MICHAEL A. RUFF, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-11-02825-2

ORDER

Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for 

writ of mandamus, and we DENY the emergency motion for stay as moot.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
# Comments on: 2017-2218: Vivint, Inc. v. Alarm.com Inc.
#### § 51-11.13 Procedure in the event of an adverse ruling.

If the court or other competent authority fails to stay the demand, the employee upon whom the demand or request is made, unless otherwise advised by the General Counsel, will appear at the stated time and place, produce a copy of this part, state that the employee has not been authorized to provide the requested testimony or produce documents, and respectfully decline to comply with the demand, citing *United States ex rel. Touhy* v. *Ragen,* 340 U.S. 462 (1951). A written response may be offered to a request, or to a demand, if permitted by the court or other competent authority.