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


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,735,194 
<SECURITIES>                                    97,031
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,311,939
<ALLOWANCES>                                    52,521
<INVENTORY>                                  4,856,497
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,058,747
<PP&E>                                       1,994,055
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,174,349
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,878,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,509,610
<BONDS>                                      1,797,945
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,024,138
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,515,874
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,878,453
<SALES>                                     11,465,144
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,622,211
<CGS>                                        6,775,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,775,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,040,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             126,907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,679,288
<INCOME-TAX>                                   394,811
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,284,477
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,284,477
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33

        

        

</TABLE>
/*!
 * Font Awesome Free 5.15.3 by @fontawesome - https://fontawesome.com
 * License - https://fontawesome.com/license/free (Icons: CC BY 4.0, Fonts: SIL OFL 1.1, Code: MIT License)
 */
@font-face{font-family:"Font Awesome 5 Free";font-style:normal;font-weight:900;font-display:block;src:url(../webfonts/fa-solid-900.eot);src:url(../webfonts/fa-solid-900.eot?#iefix) format("embedded-opentype"),url(../webfonts/fa-solid-900.woff2) format("woff2"),url(../webfonts/fa-solid-900.woff) format("woff"),url(../webfonts/fa-solid-900.ttf) format("truetype"),url(../webfonts/fa-solid-900.svg#fontawesome) format("svg")}.fa,.fas{font-family:"Font Awesome 5 Free";font-weight:900}
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

CAP-XX, LTD., 

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2024-1411

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:19-cv-01733-JLH, .

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

February 16, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: February 16, 2024

Case: 24-1411 Document: 3 Page: 1 Filed: 02/16/2024
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.372 The affirmative case. ( a ) Within 30 days after the completion of the discovery period as determined by the presiding officer, unless otherwise directed by the presiding officer, any party to the proceeding with the burden of proof shall file a pleading entitled “affirmative case” that fully addresses each of the issues designated for hearing. The affirmative case submission shall include: ( 1 ) A statement of relevant material facts, supported by sworn statements based on personal knowledge, documentation, or by other materials subject to consideration by the presiding officer, and a full legal analysis of each of the issues designated for hearing;
( 2 ) Citation to relevant sections of the Communications Act or Commission regulations or orders; and
( 3 ) The relief sought.
( b ) The affirmative case submission shall address all factual and legal questions designated for hearing, and state in detail the basis for the response to each such question. Responses based on information and belief are prohibited unless made in good faith and accompanied by a declaration or affidavit explaining the basis for the party's belief and why the party could not reasonably ascertain the facts. When a party intends in good faith to deny only part of a designated question in the affirmative case, that party shall specify so much of it as is true and shall deny only the remainder.
( c ) Failure to address in an affirmative case submission all factual and legal questions designated for hearing may result in inferences adverse to the filing party.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-41189

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIO ARROYO-JUAREZ, 

also known as Rogelio Ortega-Lopez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-00-CR-132-1

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

June 7, 2001

Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Antonio Arroyo-Juarez (“Arroyo”) appeals his conviction for

illegal reentry after deportation, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

He contends that the Government failed to allege his prior

aggravated felony conviction in his indictment. He also contends

that the district court erred by “double counting” his aggravated

felony conviction to increase both his offense level and criminal

history score.

Arroyo concedes that his first contention in this appeal is

foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres
No. 00-41189

-2-

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), and that he raises

the issue solely to preserve it for review by the Supreme Court. 

Arroyo’s second contention is without merit. See United States

v. Hawkins, 69 F.3d 11, 14 (5th Cir. 1995). This court affirms

the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.
C \ r • PI 

r 11 

1:6J‘EltA1 .14 a 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 22-0439 

MAYNARD WHITEMAN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JASON VALDEZ, 

Yellowstone County Detention Center, 

Respondent. 

AUG 3 0 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Maynard Whiteman petitions this Court for habeas corpus relief, indicating illegal 

incarceration because he claims he has been in custody for more than 200 days. He 

maintains that someone else committed the offenses and that the evidence has been 

tampered with. Whiteman also raises claims concerning his arrest and alleges that $215 

and his phone are missing. He seeks his immediate release. 

Available electronic records indicate that Whiteman has two sentences from 

criminal cases, originating in 2014 and 2017, in both the Yellowstone County and Richland 

County District Courts. The Board of Pardons and Parole (Board) granted Whiteman 

parole on those sentences on April 12, 2021, placing him with the Department of 

Corrections (DOC). 

Whiteman was arrested and charged with felony possession with intent to distribute 

in December 2021. We secured a copy of his recent case's docket sheet from the 

Yellowstone County District Court. On December 13, 2021, the State filed its charging 

documents, and the District Court held an arraignment the next day. The court imposed a 

bond of $15,000 as well as a GPS requirement. The court also appointed counsel from the 

Office of Public Defender for Whiteman. 

Even though the court issued a Release Order, it has no consequence here. Because 

Whiteman was a parolee when he was arrested, the DOC may hold him until the Board 

08/30/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0439
holds a revocation hearing. Sections 46-23-1024, and -1025, MCA. He may also be held 

on no bond. Section 46-23-1024(6), MCA. 

Whiteman has not demonstrated illegal incarceration. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. 

The causes of his incarceration are due to his pending criminal case as well as the DOC's 

hold. He is not entitled to release. Whiteman retains the remedy of appealing any 

conviction and sentence with this Court. Section 46-20-104(1), MCA. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Whiternan's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED 

and DISMISSED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record; to 

Maynard Whiteman personally; and to Terry Halpin, Clerk of District Court, Yellowstone 

County, under Cause No. DC 2021-1569, for further distribution to the presiding District 

Court Judge and counsel of record in the underlying proceeding. 

DATED this (sca} of August, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

A. M 211,.
THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON

September 21, 2023

I send my warmest greetings to all those celebrating the 30th anniversary of AmeriCorps.

Over the last three decades, more than 1,250,000 people have proudly and selflessly served in
AmeriCorps. Members of AmeriCorps represent the very best of America—bringing people
from all backgrounds together to uplift others, bolstering the bonds that unite our communities,
and promoting the dignity and respect of everyone in this great Nation.

For 30 years, AmeriCorps members and volunteers have been on the front lines of confronting
our country’s greatest challenges. Whether they are supporting schools in underserved
communities, rebuilding after natural disasters, making our people and our planet healthier, or
serving the most vulnerable among us— including veterans and seniors—AmeriCorps members
and volunteers are a constant reminder of the resilience, kindness, and compassion of our Nation.

Ihave always believed there is nothing the United States cannot do when we do it together. This
is the essential work of our democracy, and since its founding, AmeriCorps has been a critical
partner in pursuing that vision of unity for our Nation. As we mark this milestone anniversary, I
extend my deepest gratitude to AmeriCorps members and volunteers—past and present—for all
the ways you have strengthened our country. Your spirit of service truly embodies who we are
as Americans.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40311

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GENARO LUGO-SALDANA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-03-CR-1700-1

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Genaro LugoSaldana concedes that the arguments raised are foreclosed by

circuit precedent but seeks to preserve them for further review. 

The Government has moved for summary affirmance in lieu of filing

an appellee’s brief. The motion is GRANTED, and the judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.
§ 51-7.4 Typical classes of action. ( a ) 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(2) in conjunction with 40 CFR 1508.4 requires agencies to establish three typical classes of action for similar treatment under NEPA. These typical classes of action are set forth below: ( 1 ) Actions normally requiring EIS: None.
( 2 ) Actions normally requiring assessments but not necessarily EISs: Requests for actions for which determinations under § 51-7.2(b) are found to be affirmative.
( 3 ) Actions normally not requiring assessments or EISs: Request for actions by nonprofit agencies through the central nonprofit agencies to add a commodity or service to the Committee's Procurement List.
( b ) The Committee shall independently determine, by referring to 40 CFR 1508.27, whether an EIS or an environmental assessment is required where: ( 1 ) A proposal for agency action is not covered by one of the typical classes of action above; or
( 2 ) For actions which are covered, but where the presence of extraordinary circumstances indicates that some other level of environmental review may be appropriate.
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 Science Foundation

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

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental & Intergrative Activities (1193).                    

*Date/Time:*                         July 24, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         Room 130, 320, 330, 340, 370, and 470, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Caroline Wardle, Information Technology Workforce, Experimental and Integrative Activities, Room 1160, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, VA 22230 Telephone: (703) 306-1981.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate CISE Information Technology Workforce proposals submitted in response to the program announcement (NSF 00-77).                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                     

Dated: June 28, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-16786  Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
AMENDMENT TO REFERRAL AGREEMENT



This Amendment to that certain Referral  Agreement (the "Agreement")  dated June
1, 1998, is by and between  Kelley Blue Book Company  Inc., a corporation  whose
address  is 5  Oldfield,  Irvine,  CA  92618  ("KBB"),  and  Electronic  Vehicle
Remarketing,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation,  whose address is 270 South Service
Road,  Melville,  New York 11747 ("EVRI").  Each  capitalized  term used but not
defined  herein  shall  have  the  meaning   assigned  in  the  Agreement.   For
consideration,  the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, KBB
and EVRI agree as follows:

1.        Section 3.1 of the  Agreement  is replaced  in its  entirety  with the
          following:  "The term of this Agreement  commences on June 1, 1999 and
          shall end on June 1, 2000 (the "Term"),  unless otherwise  extended or
          terminated as provided herein."

2.        Section  4.1.2 is modified by  replacing  the  examples of  "Financing
          Yield" and "Fee Per Financing Submission" with the following:

         Financing Yield:  less than 15%     15.1%-20%     20.1%-25%   over 25%

         Fee Per
         Financing
         Submission:            [*]


The terms and conditions of the  Agreement,  except as duly modified by this and
previous amendments, if any, remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the parties  hereto have executed this Amendment as of the
___ day of __________, 1999.


Kelley Blue Book                          Electronic Vehicle Remarketing, Inc.


By:      /s/                              By:      /s/
   ---------------------------                --------------------------------

Name:                                      Name:
    --------------------------                --------------------------------

Title:                                     Title:
    --------------------------                 -------------------------------

Date:                                      Date:
   --------------------------                   ------------------------------
# Comments on: 18-1616: INSPIRED DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. INSPIRED PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC [OPINION], Precedential
Order entered February 5, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01585-CV

ROBIN LOUISE THOMAS, Appellant

V.

DONALD ALLIE AND JACKIE MCCLINTOCK AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 

ESTATE OF THI PHAM, Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-08195

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s February 3, 2020 opposed motion to extend time to file 

her jurisdictional letter brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the letter brief be filed no 

later than March 4, 2020. We caution that failure to comply may result in dismissal of this 

appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a),(c).

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 Annual Report of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(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 operations of the registrant.



|               |  |                            
|-------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:          |  |                            
|March 31, 2006 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|               |  |                            
|               |  | Marc N. Teal               
|               |  | Principal Financial Officer
|               |  |                            
|               |  |                            
|               |  |                            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Cheshire

No. 79-242

#### Darrelle J. Alther v. Everett P. Alther, Jr.

May 12, 1980

*355
      *Bragdon, Berkson & Mangones,*of Keene *(H. Neil Berkson*orally), for the plaintiff.

*Faulkner, Plant, Hanna, Zimmerman & Freund,*of Keene *('George R. Hanna*orally), for the defendant.

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this divorce case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding a lump sum of $12,000 and $120 per week in child support to the plaintiff. We find no error.

The parties were married in 1970. They have two children, who were eight and five years old at the time of the hearing. Plaintiff is a nurse and social worker and has been the main support of the family. Defendant has been in the contracting business but, although he has had enough work, he has never earned more than a small net income from the business.

The parties owned a home subject to three mortgages, the last in the amount of $20,000 having been added to pay defendant’s debts. There is no equity in the property. The parties have lived apart since January 1979, and for seven months the defendant paid plaintiff $120 per week for support. Plaintiff sought and was decreed a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. She was awarded custody of the children, $12,000 with interest at 10 percent, to be paid in thirty-six months, and $120 per week support for the children by *Contas,*J., on the recommendation of a Master *(Linda Stewart Dalianis,*Esq.). Defendant appeals from that decree.

Defendant testified that he was a member of the city of Keene Conservation Commission and Planning Board, president of Southwestern New Hampshire Home Builders Association, and president of the State Home Builders Association and that he had a good reputation in the trade and his work is in demand. He also testified he had three job possibilities with yearly income ranging from $15,000 to $35,000 plus commissions. He is an unskilled carpenter and a licensed electrician.

Defendant argues that his income has never been sufficient to pay the sums ordered by the court and that the order was an abuse of discretion. He claims that the $12,000 award was intended to restore to plaintiff part of her estate pursuant to RSA 458:19 and that, because there was no such estate, it was error to do so. However, RSA 458:19 also authorizes the court to order the husband “to pay such sum of money, as may be deemed just.” This is sufficient authority for the order. *See Grandmaison v.*
      *356
      *Grandmaison,*119 N.H. 268, 401 A.2d 1057 (1979); *Hamblett v. Lewis,*114 N.H. 258, 319 A.2d 629 (1974).

The fact that defendant’s present income is not sufficient to permit him to meet the payments on the $12,000 award or the $120 per week support payments does not make the order an abuse of discretion. *Mayo v. Mayo,*119 N.H. 697, 406 A.2d 719 (1979). The master was entitled to find on the evidence that defendant has the ability to earn sufficient money to meet the payments and that he should do so. *Symmes v. Symmes,*118 N.H. 488, 387 A.2d 1181 (1978).

*Appeal dismissed.*

Douglas, J., did not sit.