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 CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING,
INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPT 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,133
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,031
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,999
<PP&E>                                           4,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,370
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,779
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,276
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,905
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,698
<SALES>                                         29,775
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,775
<CGS>                                           20,796
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (65)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    938
<INCOME-TAX>                                       356
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                582
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       582
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 7, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00754

- CR

EX PARTE Andrew BRIGHAM

Original Habeas Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On November 16, 2017, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking

relief from his confinement for pending criminal charges. By order dated November 20, 2017,

this court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider rel ator’s petition and dismissed the

petition for lack of jurisdiction. This court’s opinion issued on November 22, 2017.

On November 27, 2017, relator filed two additional docume nts this court has construed

as pro se supplemental petitions for writ of hab eas corpus seeking the same relief sought in the

petition filed on November 16, 2017. For the reasons stated in this court’s opinion of November

22, 2017, relator’s supplemental petitions for writ of habeas corpus are DISMISSED FOR

LACK OF JURISDICTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on December 7, 2017

.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the sai d

court on this 7th day of December, 2017

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No s . 2016CR11697 , 2016CR11698, 2016CR7125B, and

2016CR10420 , styled The State of Texas v. Andrew Brigham , pending in the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar

County, Texas, the Honorable Norma Gonzales presiding.
{"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":"2021-2354: Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"hXmeRZcbKw\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-08-2022-2021-2354-power-probe-group-inc-v-innova-electronics-corporation-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-2354: Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-08-2022-2021-2354-power-probe-group-inc-v-innova-electronics-corporation-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=hXmeRZcbKw\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-2354: Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"hXmeRZcbKw\" 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: Power Probe Group, Inc. v. Innova Electronics Corporation (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-2354 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.210 Electronic filing.

All pleadings filed in a hearing proceeding, as well as all letters, documents, or other written submissions, shall be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System, excluding confidential material as set forth in § 1.314. A courtesy copy of all submissions shall be contemporaneously provided to the presiding officer, as directed by the Commission.

[85 FR 63174, Oct. 6, 2020]
#### § 60-1.44 Rulings and interpretations.

Rulings under or interpretations of the order or the regulations contained in this part shall be made by the Secretary or his designee.
#### Olumuyiwa Ayodeji ADELEKE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-10625.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 19, 2004.

Olumuyiwa Ayodeji Adeleke, Irving, TX, pro se.

Michael A. McCabe, Haynes & Boone, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before SMITH, DeMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Olumuyiwa Adeleke sued his former employer, claiming violations of title VII. In a careful, detailed, and comprehensive order signed on May 30, 2002, and entered on June 3, 2003, the district court granted summary judgment to the bank. Adeleke appeals *pro se.*

We affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the district court. This was an ordinary workplace dispute, and Adeleke was terminated for well established and documented reasons. As the district court demonstrated, there is no showing that any employment statute was violated.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
4688 

4689 

4690 

4691 

4692 

4693 

4694 

4695 

4696 

4697 

4698 

4699 

4700 

4701 

4702 

4703 

4704 

4705 

4706 

4707 

4708 

4709 

4710 

4711 

4712 

4713 

4714 

4715 

4716 

4717 

4718 

4719 

4720 

4721 

4722 

4723 

4724 

4725 

4726 

4727 

4728 

4729 

4730 

4731 

4732 

4733 

4734 

4735 

4736 

4737 

4738 

4739 

4740 

4741 

4742 

4743 

4744 

4745 

4746 

4747 

4748 

4749 

4750 

4751 

4752 

4753 

4754 

4755 

4756 

4757 

4758 

4759 

4760 

4761 

4762 

4763 

4764 

4765 

4766 

4767 

4768 

4769 

4770 

4771 

4772 

4773 

4774 

4775 

4776 

4777 

4778 

4779 

4780 

4781 

4782 

4783 

4784 

4785 

4786 

4787 

4788 

4789 

4790 

4791 

4792 

4793 

4794 

4795 

4796 

4797 

4798 

4799 

4800 

4801 

4802 

4803 

4804 

4805 

4806 

4807 

4808 

4809 

4810 

4811 

4812 

4813 

4814 

4815 

4816 

4817 

4818 

4819 

4820 

4821 

4822 

4823 

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2010-12-23T16:23:06-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (No.  33-80450 and  333-91863)  and Forms S-3 (File Nos.
33-99736-01, 333-3526-01 and 333-39365-01) of our report dated January 18, 2001,
except for the information presented in Note 15, for which the date is March 12,
2001,  relating to the financial  statements and financial  statement  schedule,
which appears in Tanger Properties Limited  Partnership's Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2000.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


March 30, 2001
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 1.50 Specifications as to briefs.

The Commission's preference is for briefs that are either typewritten, prepared by other mechanical processing methods, or, in the case of matters in the Wireless Radio Services, composed electronically and sent via ULS. Printed briefs will be accepted only if specifically requested by the Commission. Typewritten, mechanically produced, or electronically transmitted briefs must conform to all of the applicable specifications for pleadings and documents set forth in § 1.49.

[63 FR 68920, Dec. 14, 1998]
{"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":"2022-1140: Bridges v. US - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"71qFLsf5Fz\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2022-2022-1140-bridges-v-us-audio-uploaded\/\">2022-1140: Bridges v. US<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2022-2022-1140-bridges-v-us-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=71qFLsf5Fz\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2022-1140: Bridges v. US” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"71qFLsf5Fz\" 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: Bridges v. US (mp3) Appeal Number: 2022-1140 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
No. 11-9503.

#### Issa *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Diem Quang NGUYEN, Appellant.

No. 03-1468.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 5, 2004.

Decided March 17, 2004.

James Edward Lackner, Nicole A. En-gisch, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Diem Quang Nguyen, White Deer, PA, pro se.

Kenneth M. Bottema, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Diem Quang Nguyen appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the District of Minnesota upon his guilty plea to mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2. The district court sentenced appellant to 36 months imprisonment, 3 years supervised release, a $10,000 fine, and restitution. Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing *190for reversal that the district court erred at sentencing in imposing a 2-level increase for obstruction of justice and in denying a 2-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility.

The district court did not clearly err in finding those calculations justified by Nguyen’s misrepresentations about his financial condition to the probation officer preparing his presentence report (PSR), *see*U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 comment. (n.4(h)) (obstruction adjustment applies for providing materially false information to probation officer with respect to PSR), and did not err in granting the enhancement and denying the reduction based on the same conduct, *see*U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 comment, (n.4) (conduct which supports obstruction-of-justice enhancement “ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility”). *See United States v. Calderon-Avila,*322 F.3d 505, 507 (8th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (clear error review of factual findings and de novo review of Guidelines construction).

Following our independent review of the record, *see Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonirivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
# Comments on: 2021-1902: In Re Asset Guard Products, Inc.
Order filed June 19, 2012 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00854-CV

____________

TIFFANY DIGGS, Appellant

V.

RANDOLPH DIGGS, JR., Appellee

On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-81634

O R D E R

Appellant=s brief was due May 30, 2012. No brief or motion for extension of time 

has been filed. 

Unless appellant submits a brief to the clerk of this court on or before July 19, 

2012, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
# Comments on: Federal Circuit Schedules October 2019 Session for the Dallas-Fort Worth Area
§ 105-54.401 Reports on GSA Federal Advisory Committees. ( a ) The Committee Management Secretariat periodically issues reporting instructions and procedures. The GSA Committee Management Officer files a report each fiscal year providing program, financial, and membership information. The Secretariat uses the information in preparing recommendations and status reports on advisory committee matters and in assisting the President in preparing and submitting a fiscal year report to the Congress. Instructions for preparing GSA's submission are provided by the GSA Committee Management Officer.
( b ) Reports on closed meetings are required as specified in § 105-54.301(o).
{"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":"22-1282: TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"YGTB51PlVc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/09-20-2023-22-1282-target-corporation-v-proxicom-wireless-llc-opinion-22-1282-opinion-9-20-2023_2193220\/\">22-1282: TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/09-20-2023-22-1282-target-corporation-v-proxicom-wireless-llc-opinion-22-1282-opinion-9-20-2023_2193220\/embed\/#?secret=YGTB51PlVc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1282: TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"YGTB51PlVc\" 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":"OPINION Posted: TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1282 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**MOSSIMO, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

I, Edwin Lewis, Vice Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer ofthe registrant, certify that:

1.                 I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 10-K of Mossimo, Inc.;

2.                 Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report.

3.                 Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to usby others, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrols over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

(a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
| /s/ EDWIN LEWIS                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
| Edwin Lewis                                    |
| *Vice Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer* |
| March 31, 2006                            |

 

----
#### § 302-3.313 May I have my household goods transported from more than one location?

Yes, you may have your household goods transported from more than one location. However, you will only receive reimbursement based on the cost of shipment from your official station, in one lot by the most economical route to the location where you elect to return. You will have to pay for any cost above what is authorized.