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

<ARTICLE>   5

    <S>                                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                              AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                                      $10,906
<SECURITIES>                                                     $0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    $0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     $0
<INVENTORY>                                                      $0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            $10,906
<PP&E>                                                         $200
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   $0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              $11,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                            $0
<BONDS>                                                          $0
<COMMON>                                                     $1,605
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            $0
<PREFERRED>                                                      $0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  $10,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                $11,668
<SALES>                                                          $0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 $0
<CGS>                                                            $0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    $0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           $(92,667)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               $0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            $(92,667)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     $0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        $(92,667)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  $0
<CHANGES>                                                        $0
<NET-INCOME>                                               $(92,667)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 $(.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 $(.06)



</TABLE>
449P11-13

#### State v. Charles Everette Hinton

1. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

1. 2. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for

Necessary Joinder of Parties

2.

3. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for Joinder of Claims and Remedies

3.

4. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for Evidentiary Oral Hearing and Findings and Conclusions by the Court

4.

6. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for Inquiry into Restraint on Liberty; Petition for *Writ of Habeas Corpus-,*Relief from Judgments

6. Denied 02/19/2016

6. Petitioner’s *Pro Se*Motion for Calendaring Cause

6.
##### 



1.
    
    Section 6.1 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
 :
 (a)
    
    The expiration of the deferral period provided under the Participants Agreement,(b)
    
    The Participant incurs an Unforeseen Emergency (as determined by the Administrator in
accordance with the Plan),(c)
    
    The Participant terminates service with the Employer for any reason, or(d)
    
    The Participants service is terminated by the Employer for any reason
 2.
    
    This Amendment Two shall be effective November 1, 2000 .
  AMERICAN GREETINGS CORPORATIONby:
    
    /s/ Morry WeissMorry WeissChairman & Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-11185.

#### Raihala *v.*Michigan.

Cir. Ct. Cass County, Mich. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31
                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Kenneth P. Hamik, President and CFO, of LipidViro Tech, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Registrant;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;

     3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
Quarterly Report;

     4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14)
for the Registrant and I have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
          material information relating to the Registrant, including its
          consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within
          those entities, particularly during the period in which this
          Quarterly Report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure
          controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
          filing date of this Quarterly Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)   presented in this Quarterly Report my conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
          My evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the
Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
          internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's
          ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
          and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material
          weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
          other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's
          internal controls.

Dated: May 15, 2006.     Signature:/s/Kenneth P. Hamik
                                     Kenneth P. Hamik
                                     President and CEO
69–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–4

PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 99, THE

TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

FEBRUARY 2, 1999.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. DREIER, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 31]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 31, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 99, the

‘‘Temporary Extension of Federal Aviation Administration Programs’’ under an open rule. The rule provides one hour of general

debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

The rule waives clause 4(a) of Rule XIII (requiring a three-day

layover of the committee report) and sections 302(f) (prohibiting

consideration of legislation providing new budget authority in excess of a subcommittee’s 302(b) allocation) and 303(a) (prohibiting

consideration of legislation providing new budget authority or contract authority for a fiscal year until the budget resolution for that

fiscal year has been agreed to) of the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 against the consideration of the bill.

The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, which

shall be considered as read. The rule further waives clause 7 of

Rule XVI (prohibiting nongermane amendments) and sections

302(f) and 303(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against

the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Record

prior to their consideration will be given priority in recognition to

offer their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules.
2

The rule allows for the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole

to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce

votes to five minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a

fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

The waivers of the Budget Act are necessary because there is no

FY 1999 budget resolution and Budget Committee Chairman Kasich has not yet published in the Congressional Record budget allocations pursuant to House Resolution 5. Also, the waiver of clause

7 of Rule XVI is necessary because Title II of the amendment in

the nature of a substitute was not part of the introduced bill. Title

II is language from the Ways and Means Committee that allows expenditures from the Aviation trust fund. Finally, the waiver of

clause 4(a) of Rule XIII is needed because the report of H.R. 99 was

not filed until Tuesday, February 2, and the bill is expected to be

considered on the House floor on Wednesday, February 3.

Æ
# Comments on: Public Access for Arguments
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 Labor Employment and Training Administration
 Under section 8521(a)(2) of title 5 of the United States Code, the Secretary of Labor is required to issue from time to time, after consultation with the Secretary of Defense, a Schedule of Remuneration specifying the pay and allowances for each pay grade of members of the military services. The schedules are used to calculate the base period wages and benefits payable under the program of Unemployment Compensation for Ex-servicemembers (UCX). This notice is to publish a revised schedule that reflects increases in military pay and allowances which were effective in July 2000.
                    ( print page 41099) Accordingly, the following new Schedule of Remuneration, issued pursuant to 20 CFR 614.12(c), applies to “First Claims” for UCX which are effective beginning with the first day of the first week which begins on or after October 1, 2000. Pay grade
Monthly rate(1) Commissioned Officers:0-10
13,3290-9
12,4450-8
11,4650-7
10,3880-6
8,7610-5
7,3410-4
6,0850-3
4,8070-2
3,8340-1
2,900(2) Commissioned Officers With Over 4 Years Active Duty As An Enlisted Member Or Warrant Officer:0-3E
5,6340-2E
4,6530-1E
3,889(3) Warrant Officers:W-5
6,410W-4
5,511W-3
4,599W-2
3,925W-1
3,354(4) Enlisted Personnel:E-9
5,086E-8
4,276E-7
3,724E-6
3,273E-5
2,778E-4
2,330E-3
2,055E-2
1,972E-1
1,744
 The publication of this new Schedule of Remuneration does not revoke any prior schedule or change the period of time for which any prior schedule was in effect. Signed at Washington, DC, on June 26, 2000. Raymond L. Bramucci, Assistant Secretary of Labor.


[FR Doc. 00-16748  Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
No. 11-1014.

#### Harman et vir *v.*Datte et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 15 - 00422 - CV IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF J AY STANTON AND RITA R. STANTON On Appeal from the 242nd District Court

Castro County, Texas Trial Court No. B9837 - 1408, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding



### May 3 , 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Through his attorney, cross - appellant Jay Stanton has filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss h is appeal. The motion is unopposed. W ithout passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion and dismiss cross - appellant’s appeal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1) . Having dismissed the appeal at cross - appellant’s request, and having previously dismissed the appeal of appellant Rita R. Stanton, no motion for rehearing will be entertained . Per Curiam
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10837

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Selvin Leonell Hernandez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CR-401-1

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Selvin Leonell Hernandez appeals his convictions on two counts of 

being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). 

Hernandez contends that the district court plainly erred by accepting his 

guilty pleas absent evidence that he personally moved a firearm in interstate 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 1, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10837 Document: 00515805290 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2021
No. 20-10837

2

commerce or that a firearm was moved in interstate commerce in the recent 

past, which he argues are required elements of a § 922(g)(1) offense. He 

concedes that his challenge to his convictions is foreclosed by United States 

v. Fitzhugh, 984 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 1993), in which we held that “a 

convicted felon’s possession of a firearm having a past connection to 

interstate commerce violates § 922(g)(1).” But he argues that Fitzhugh was 

abrogated by the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Bond, 572 U.S. 

844 (2014). Relying on Fitzhugh, the Government moves for summary 

affirmance, agreeing with Hernandez that his appeal of the factual basis of his 

guilty pleas is foreclosed. Alternatively, the Government moves for an 

extension of time to file a merits brief.

Neither party cites, nor are we are of, any published authority 

addressing Bond’s effect on the interpretation of § 922(g)(1). Because it 

cannot therefore be said that the Government’s position is “clearly right as a 

matter of law,” summary affirmance is inappropriate in this case, and we 

deny the Government’s motion for summary affirmance. Groendyke Transp., 

Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Nonetheless, finding no plain error, we affirm the judgment without 

the need for further briefing. See generally Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009); United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010). The 

absence of binding authority discussing Bond’s effect on § 922(g)’s federal 

nexus element renders the question of error in this case, at best, subject to 

reasonable dispute. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. “By definition, that is not 

plain error.” United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537, 550 (5th Cir. 2012).

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance and its alternative 

motion for an extension of time are each DENIED. The judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10837 Document: 00515805290 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2021
No. 11-5135.

#### Slater *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
IIA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4452

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 20 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

AN ACT

To designate the United States Post Office building located

at 115 North Chester in Ruleville, Mississippi, as the

‘‘Fannie Lou Hamer Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States Post Office building located at 115

5 North Chester in Ruleville, Mississippi, shall be known

6 and designated as the ‘‘Fannie Lou Hamer Post Office’’.
2

•HR 4452 RFS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the building

4 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference

5 to the Fannie Lou Hamer Post Office.

Passed the House of Representatives September 19,

1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

on Technology (COT) unanimously agreed to recommend to this Court certain amendments to the Montana Judicial Branch Information Technology Strategic Plan, December 2002 (the Plan). Those amendments are to add to Goal 1 on page 11 of the Plan, the following objectives: 1.7 Complete deployment by June 30, 2005, of Full Court to the Courts of Limited Jurisdiction to replace existing systems. Estimated timeframe -- FYE 2005 1.8 The Office of the Court Administrator will establish by June 30,2003, an accounting structure that will identify the fiscal items of revenue and expenses and that will generate a semi-annual report relating to information technology with the Supreme Court, District Courts, Courts of Limited Jurisdiction, Clerk of the Supreme Court and Clerks of District Courts. Estimated time~ame--sngoing Having considered these proposed amendments; good cause shown, IT IS ORDERED that the Plan is so amended. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give notice of this Order by mail to the Chairperson of the Commission on Technology; to the Clerks of the District Courts; to the President of the Montana Magistrates Association; to Dan Chelini, Directorof Information Technology; to the Executive Director of the State Bar of

the State Law Librarian with the request that they post this orderto their respective websites. DATED this Y of February, 2003. r
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.58 Forbearance petition quiet period prohibition.

The prohibition in § 1.1203(a) on contacts with decisionmakers concerning matters listed in the Sunshine Agenda shall also apply to a petition for forbearance for a period of 14 days prior to the statutory deadline under 47 U.S.C. 160(c) or as announced by the Commission.

[74 FR 39227, Aug. 6, 2009]
#### § 302-3.215 Will I be reimbursed for tour renewal travel from a post of duty in Hawaii and return to a post of duty in Alaska or for such travel from a post of duty in Alaska and return to a post of duty in Hawaii?

No, you will not be reimbursed for tour renewal travel unless your return travel is to a post of duty in the same State that you traveled from.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

UNDER SEAL (NON-PUBLIC ORDER)

__________________________

IN RE COMPLAINT NO. 23-90015

__________________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, PROST and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

ORDER

By order of March 24, 2023, a special committee composed of Chief Judge Moore, Judge Prost and Judge Taranto (the Committee) was appointed to investigate and 

report its findings and recommendations with respect to a 

complaint identified against Judge Newman raising, inter 

alia, a concern that she has a mental or physical disability 

that renders her unable to discharge the duties of her office. Judge Newman has refused to comply with the Committee’s order to undergo examination and testing in the 

order dated April 7, 2023. 

To obtain information the Committee believes important to its fulfillment of its responsibilities, the Committee, by the present Order, requires that Judge Newman 

provide hospital records, medical, psychiatric or psychological, and other health-professional records that relate to 

the incidents of 2021 and 2022 described in the second paragraph of the Order dated March 24, 2023. These include 

records of treatment as well as consultation about those 
IN RE COMPLAINT NO 23-90015 2

incidents, whether from a time contemporaneous with the 

incidents or later. 

The Committee also requires production of hospital 

records and medical, psychiatric or psychological, or other 

health-professional records of any treatment or consultation in the last two years regarding attention, focus, confusion, memory loss, fatigue or stamina. 

Separate from the foregoing records requirement, the 

Committee also requests that Judge Newman sit down 

with the Committee for a video-taped interview. 

The Committee proposes Judge Newman provide such 

medical records by May 5, 2023 (subject to an extension for 

good cause) and that Judge Newman be interviewed by the 

Committee thereafter at a mutually agreeable time and 

date. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

By 9:00 am Friday, April 21, 2023, Judge Newman is 

directed to (1) inform the Committee in writing (email response is acceptable) as to whether (a) she will provide the 

Committee with the identified medical information; and (b) 

she will consent to the proposed interview or (2) provide 

good cause why an extension of time is needed to respond 

to this Order. Refusal to comply with this Order without 

good cause shown may result in the Committee seeking to 

expand the scope of the investigation to include inquiry 

into whether the subject judge’s non-cooperation constitutes misconduct under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. Failure 

to respond by 9:00 am April 21, 2023 will be deemed failure 

to comply and be treated by the Committee as a refusal to 

cooperate. So ordered April 17, 2023.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Kody Douglas Taylor

, * From the 42nd District

Court of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 25441

- A

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00208

- CR * October 23, 2014

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t here is

no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion,

the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.