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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                            FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of operations found on pages F-3 and F-4 of the Company's
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          98,015
<SECURITIES>                                 3,726,004
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,845,145
<PP&E>                                         136,919
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,017
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,956,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,736
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           373
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,888,858
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,956,967
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,731,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,507,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,507,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,507,600)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.28)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 11.53 [Reserved]
No. 11-9085.

#### Qazza *v.*City of Orange, California, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
                     Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Tanger
                     Properties Limited Partnership (the "
                     Operating Partnership") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that: (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Operating
                     Partnership for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
                     15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
                     amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                     of the Operating Partnership.  Date: March 1, 2010
                           
                           
                           /s/ Steven B. TangerSteven B. Tanger
                              President and Chief Executive Officer of Tanger GP Trust, Sole
                                 General Partner of the Registrant
§ 102-75.1290 What happens if the landholding agency requesting the property does not promptly accept custody and accountability? ( a ) The requesting agency must assume protection and maintenance responsibilities for the property within 30 days of the date of the letter assigning custody and accountability for the property.
( b ) After notifying the requesting agency, GSA may, at its discretion, pursue other disposal options.
§ 15.714 White space database administration fees. ( a ) A white space database administrator may charge a fee for provision of lists of available channels to fixed, mobile, and personal/portable devices and for registering fixed devices. This paragraph (a) applies to devices that operate in the TV bands, the 600 MHz service band, the 600 MHz duplex gap, and 608-614 MHz (channel 37).
( b ) A white space database administrator may charge a fee for provision of lists of available channels to wireless microphone users.
( c ) The Commission, upon request, will review the fees and can require changes in those fees if they are found to be excessive.
[80 FR 73070, Nov. 23, 2015, as amended at 84 FR 34799, July 19, 2019; 86 FR 2296, Jan. 12, 2021]
§ 50-204.32 Records. ( a ) Every employer shall maintain records of the radiation exposure of all employees for whom personnel monitoring is required under § 50-204.23 and advise each of his employees of his individual exposure on at least an annual basis.
( b ) Every employer shall maintain records in the same units used in tables in § 50-204.21 and appendix B to 10 CFR part 20.
#### § 60-30.30 Administrative Order.

After expiration of the time for filing, the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, shall make a decision which shall be served on all parties. If the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, concludes that the defendant has violated the Executive Order, the equal opportunity clause, or the regulations, an Administrative Order shall be issued enjoining the violations, and requiring the contractor to provide whatever remedies are appropriate, and imposing whatever sanctions are appropriate, or any of the above. In any event, failure to comply with the Administrative Order shall result in the immediate cancellation, termination, and suspension of the respondent's contracts and/or debarment of the respondent from further contracts.

[85 FR 30627, May 20, 2020]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16659]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AA210-00-1610-01-2410]


Public Land and Resources; Planning, Programming and Budgeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Extension of comment period for draft land use planning manual 
and handbook.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is developing a new manual 
and handbook for preparing land use plans and is extending by 30 days 
the time period for the public to review the proposed guidance and 
provide comments.

DATES: Send your comments on the draft land use planning manual and 
handbook to reach BLM by August 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail your comments to the Bureau of Land Management (WO-
210), Attention: Ted Milesnick, 1849 C Street NW., (LS-1050), 
Washington, DC, 20240-0001 or send them electronically to 
wo210.blm.gov.
    Copies of the draft land use planning manual and handbook may be 
obtained from any of the following sources: the Internet at 
www.blm.gov; the BLM Washington Office (U.S. Department of the 
Interior, BLM, Planning, Assessment and Community Support Group (WO-
210), 1849 C Street, NW., (LS-1050), Washington, DC. 20240-0001); or 
from any BLM State Office or Field Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Milesnick at (202) 452-7727, Ann 
Aldrich at (202) 452-7722, or Paul Politzer at (202) 452-0349.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of availability and additional 
supplementary information for the Draft Land Use Planning Manual and 
Handbook were published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2000 (65 FR 
34495), with a comment period expiring July 10, 2000. The BLM has 
received requests from the public to extend the comment period on the 
draft planning guidance. We recognize the value of public input on the 
draft guidance and therefore are extending the comment period for 30 
days. We are limiting the extension to 30 days because of our desire to 
fully consider all comments and finalize the manual and handbook so 
that they can be used to guide the development of numerous planning 
efforts scheduled to begin October 1, 2000, the beginning of Fiscal 
Year 2001.

    Dated: June 27, 2000.
Sherry Barnett,
Acting Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning.
[FR Doc. 00-16659 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

August 25, 2020

ERRATA

______________________

Appeal No. 2019-1738

CHRISTY, INC., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL 

OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

Decided: August 24, 2020

Precedential Opinion

______________________

Please make the following change:

On Page 5, line 10, change “oral argument” to --submission--.

Case: 19-1738 Document: 68 Page: 1 Filed: 08/25/2020
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2019-2064: Murphy v. Wilkie - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"NjQWeFgLar\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-02-2020-2019-2064-murphy-v-wilkie-audio-uploaded\/\">2019-2064: Murphy v. Wilkie<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-02-2020-2019-2064-murphy-v-wilkie-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=NjQWeFgLar\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2019-2064: Murphy v. Wilkie” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"NjQWeFgLar\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Murphy v. Wilkie (mp3) Appeal Number: 2019-2064 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
EXHIBIT 10.10



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

                  ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS WORLDWIDE INC. (ESW)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




DEAR SHANNON,

As per our conversation on July 18, 2002

It has been accepted and agreed upon by both parties that the signed contract
between SQUYRES WORLDWIDE VENTURES INCORPORATED and ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS
WORLDWIDE INC which commenced on May 01 2002 and held a termination date of
August 01 2002 is to have the termination date extended until October 01 2002.

The extension of the termination date will have no adverse affect on the content
of the contract, attached specific proposal schedule and all confirmed services
to be rendered by SQUYRES WORLDWIDE VENTURES INCORPORATED on behalf of
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS WORLDWIDE INC.

There will be no further remuneration based on the extension of the termination
date other than that agreed upon in the original contract.

Thank you for corporation.


DAVID JOHNSON

/s/ DAVID JOHNSON
-----------------


MANAGING DIRECTOR
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS WORLDWIDE, INC.
NASDAQ OTC:BB ESWW
HTTP://WWW.CLEANERFUTURE.COM



<PAGE>
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

717 MADISON PLACE, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20439

PETER R. MARKSTEINER

CLERK OF COURT

CLERK’S OFFICE

202-275-8000

March 27, 2020

Guidance to Counsel on Serving Documents Outside of CM/ECF

The Clerk’s Office has received an increase in questions concerning service of 

documents outside of the court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF) due to current 

public health guidance and restrictions that inhibit access to postal mail. The 

Clerk’s Office offers the below guidance on how counsel may accomplish service 

outside of CM/ECF, which is most frequently required when serving pro se parties 

or confidential materials.

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(c)(2), parties may electronically serve 

each other outside of the court’s electronic filing system “by sending it by other 

electronic means that the person to be served consented to in writing.” Service 

through this method is complete on “sending, unless the party making service is 

notified that the paper was not received by the party served.” Fed. R. App. P. 

25(c)(4). The court is not involved when parties agree in writing to provide 

service through alternate electronic means, such as through email. 

Consistent with the court’s November 1, 2019 notice, the filing party must include a 

proof of service noting the form of service. 

On March 20, 2020, the Clerk’s Office issued Modified Service Procedures for Pro Se 

Parties with specific procedures for how pro se parties can preemptively consent to 

electronic service. 

If a person to be served does not consent to an alternate method of service, the 

Clerk’s Office recommends two other options:

1. Designate someone in your office either remaining on-site or working remotely to 

handle the printing and mailing of all documents that cannot be served through 

CM/ECF.

2. File a motion to delay service of process. If granted, a corrected certificate of 

service will need to be filed once service is accomplished. Note that delaying 

service may impact responsive deadlines that are calculated from the date of 

service not filing. See, e.g., Fed. Cir. R. 27(a); Fed. Cir. R. 31(a).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000006814
<NAME>                        COMFORCE Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               4,654
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       25,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                           423
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    36,773
<PP&E>                                               1,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                         212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      77,570
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               44,720
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              2
<COMMON>                                               129
<OTHER-SE>                                          27,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        77,570
<SALES>                                             35,808
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    35,808
<CGS>                                               31,086
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       34,487
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      (344)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,709
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (44)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            58
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (102)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (102)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. AUGUSTUS MILLER, *v.*THE BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS.

*O&rttorwri*— what *it brings up for review.*

’Certiorari to review the proceedings of the board of police commissioners, in removing the respondent from the office of sergeant of police.

• With reference to what questions were brought up by the *certiorari,*the court, at General Term, said: “ If we were to look at the returns in this case as a bill of exceptions upon the trial of an action at law, we might be constrained to hold that some of the rulings of the board upon this trial, touching the admission or rejection of evidence, were erroneous. But we do not understand it to be the province of a *certiorari*of this kind to bring such questions before us for review. In our judgment all that is before us for consideration are the questions whether the board had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and person of the relator; whether the relator was regularly tried in accordance with the rules and regulations established by the board, having an opportunity to be present to be heard; and whether upon such trial competent and legal testimony, sufficient to justify the conclusion of the board in finding him guilty upon the charges. If we go beyond those questions we subject this special and statutory tribunal to all the rules, technical and otherwise, that attend trials in courts of common law, and we substantially disarm the board of commissioners of the summary powers intended to be conferred upon them for the purpose of preserving a competent and efficient police. Every removal of a member of the force will be the subject"of review; and every technical error or departure from the established rules of evidence in courts of law, will be instruments to thwart the discipline sought to be maintained by the rules of the board, and to keep unfit persons in the position of members of the force. Besides, the calendars of this court and the Court of Appeals will be thronged with cases of this kind, for the purpose of reviewing the decisions of the board upon questions of evidence, independently of the guilt or innocence of *514the officer charged with the breach of discipline. We think the numerous and extremely conflicting cases upon questions arising upon the common-law writ of *certiorari*do not require us to go this length. The evidence upon the question whether the relator was guilty of the charge and specification in this case was conflicting. There was enough, however, of positive and direct evidence, corroborated by circumstantial evidence, to justify the commissioners in reaching their conclusion.”

*W. W. Ladd,*for the relator. *Charles J. McLea/n,*for the defendants.

Opinion by Davis, P. J.; Brady and Daniels, JJ., concurred.

Proceedings and decision affirmed and writ quashed, with costs.
46356.

#### GRANGER v. THE STATE.

(378 SE2d 303)

Bell, Justice.

The appellant, Roy Granger, was convicted of the murder of William Brown, and received a life sentence.1 On appeal Granger challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

The evidence showed that Granger and Brown, who did not know each other, were both eating at a Waffle House restaurant in the early morning hours of February 16, 1988. Granger was seated at the counter, and Brown was seated in a booth facing Granger. Granger, who had been drinking, fell asleep and knocked over his cup of coffee. A waitress woke Granger, who then started an argument with Brown by stating, “don’t look at me.” Brown replied that he was not, but Granger got up, drew a large knife, and approached Brown. Brown *190walked toward the front door, but Granger blocked his way. Brown then attempted to elude Granger, but was unsuccessful. Granger cornered Brown, and stabbed him to death.

Decided April 19, 1989.

*A. Nevell Owens,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Benjamin H. Oehlert III, Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Eddie Snelling, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

Viewing the foregoing evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Granger guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The crime occurred on February 11,1988. Granger was indicted on March 15, and tried on May 11-12. The jury returned its verdict of guilty on May 12. Granger filed a motion for new trial on June 6, and an amended motion for new trial on July 20. The court reporter certified the trial transcript on August 1, and the trial court denied Granger’s motion for new trial on September 15, 1988. Granger filed his notice of appeal on October 6. The case was docketed in this court on November 2, and submitted for decision without oral arguments on December 16, 1988.