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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOUND ON PAGES 3, 4 AND 5 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE OF
EACH PERIOD AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          21,642
<SECURITIES>                                    41,968
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,253
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               228,622
<PP&E>                                           5,527
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 239,806
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          205,337
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            3,687
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,415
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   239,806
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,803
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,920
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    50
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,188
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,998
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,190
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.10


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles Partners XI;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: November 13, 2007

/s/Stephen B. Waters

Stephen B. Waters

Vice President of Angeles Realty Corporation II,

equivalent of the chief financial officer of the

Partnership
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE   CONTAINS   SUMMARY   FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM
REGISTRANT'S  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         296
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  284
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                      11,294
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,627
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,054
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                   238
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1503.641 Offer of proof.

A party whose evidence has been excluded by a ruling of the ALJ may offer the evidence for the record on appeal.
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Parole Commission

          - [6P04091]

Pursuant To The Government In The Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409) [5 U.S.C. 552b].

# AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:

Department of Justice. United States Parole Commission.

# TIME AND DATE:

10 a.m., Wednesday, January 24, 2007.

# PLACE:

5550 Friendship Blvd., Fourth Floor, Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The following matters have been placed on the agenda for the open Parole Commission meeting:

1. Approval of Minutes of Previous Commission Meeting.

2. Reports from the Chairman, Commissioners, Chief of Staff, and Section Administrators.

3. Proposed Amendment to 28 CFR 2.25.

4. Proposed Amendment to 28 CFR 2.66.

# AGENCY CONTACT:

Thomas W. Hutchison, Chief of Staff, United States Parole Commission, (301) 492-5990.

Dated: January 17, 2007.

Rockne Chickinell,

General Counsel, U.S. Parole Commission.

[FR Doc. 07-260 Filed 1-18-07; 10:20 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-31-M
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1867 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1867

                 For the relief of Gregory E. Walters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 1995

  Mr. Duncan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 For the relief of Gregory E. Walters.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF CLAIM AGAINST UNITED STATES.

    The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $225,000 to Gregory E. 
Walters of Knoxville, Tennessee. The payment shall be in full 
satisfaction of any claim Gregory E. Walters may have against the 
United States arising out of any allegation made by him against the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, with respect to the administration of any 
program for the insulation of houses, while employed with the Tennessee 
Valley Authority from 1977 to 1980.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS FEES.

    It shall be unlawful for more than 10 percent of the sum 
appropriated in section 1 to be paid to or received by any agent or 
attorney for services rendered in connection with the claim described 
in such section. Any person who violates this section shall be fined 
under title 18, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
69–008

106TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 106–144

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE

REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 1141, THE 1999 EMERGENCY

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

MAY 17, 1999.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mrs. MYRICK, from the Committee on Rules,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. Res. 173]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 173, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference

report on H.R. 1141, the ‘‘1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,’’ and against its consideration. The rule also provides

that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Æ
#### § 67.509 Application for approval of exchange of Certificate of Documentation requiring mortgagee consent.

An application fee is charged for approval of exchange of a Certificate of Documentation requiring mortgagee consent in accordance with subpart K of this part.
#### Elizabeth V. B. Smith and Chester Huntington, *as Executors, etc., Respondents, v.*Edward Roberts and Irene B. Roberts, *Appellants*.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Brady, J.
Submitted on record and briefs August 7,

reversed and remanded for new trial October 25, 1995

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*ALEXANDER C. PENLEY, *Appellant.*

(DA1003144; CA A85420)

904 P2d 199

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, and Eric M. Cumfer, Deputy Public Defender, filed the briefs for appellant.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Robert B. Rocklin, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Riggs and Landau, Judges.

*353RICHARDSON, C. J.

*354RICHARDSON, C. J.

Defendant appeals his conviction in the district court for resisting arrest, ORS 162.315, a class A misdemeanor. In his opening brief, he contended that the trial court erred by excluding some evidence that he had offered. He filed a supplemental brief in which he argues that the court did not have jurisdiction over class A misdemeanors and asks for dismissal. *State v. Rudder,*133 Or App 174, 889 P2d 1367 (1995).

The state concedes that the court erred by excluding the evidence and that defendant is entitled to a new trial. *State v. Hubbard,*297 Or 789, 688 P2d 1311 (1984). It contends that we need not address the jurisdictional issue because, even if the trial court did not have jurisdiction, all defendant would be entitled to would be a new trial. Because he is entitled to a new trial on the evidentiary error, the state argues that the question of jurisdiction is essentially moot.

Even if the state is correct that a defendant can be retried if it is determined that the court lacked jurisdiction in the first trial, we address the jurisdictional issue that is raised. If the court did not have jurisdiction, the proceeding is a nullity for that reason and the charge should have been dismissed. If properly dismissed, it cannot be revived simply by a remand. If the state wishes to retry a case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, it must properly initiate the prosecution in a court with jurisdiction. We express no opinion as to whether a case may be lawfully retried under those circumstances.

We hold, however, that the district court had jurisdiction over the charge for which defendant was convicted. The complaint alleged that defendant committed the crime on July 17, 1993, which was before the amendment of ORS 161.635 became effective. We held in *State v. Flowers,*136 Or App 555, 902 P2d 624 (1995), that the court had jurisdiction of class A misdemeanors committed before the amendment became effective.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.
98-1059.

#### Lancaster v. Fairfield Cty. Budget Comm.

Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 97-D-1172 and 97-D-1173. On motion to dismiss. Motion denied.
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Amelia M. Robinson, *Respondent, v.*Michael O’Keefe, *Appellant.*

—Judgment reversed and writ dismissed, with costs. Opinion by

Pratt, J.
#### In the Matter of the Application of the City or New York, Respondent, Relative to Acquiring Title to Lands Required for the Opening of Edgewater Road. Hunt’s Point Realty Company, Appellant.

*Matter of City of New York (Edgewater Road),*138 App. Div. 203, affirmed.

(Argued September 27, 1910;

decided October 11, 1910.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May *56113, 1910, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to confirm the report of commissioners of estimate and assessment in the above-entitled proceeding.

*Francis P. O'Connor*and *Edward*IF. *Murphy*for appellant.

*Archibald R.*Watson, *Corporation Counsel (Joel J.*Sgider, *F.*IF. *Gahrmann*and *C. A. Molloy*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., TIaight, Yann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
§ 172.701 Federal-State relationship. This subpart and the parts referenced in § 172.700(c) prescribe minimum training requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials. For motor vehicle drivers, however, a State may impose more stringent training requirements only if those requirements— ( a ) Do not conflict with the training requirements in this subpart and in part 177 of this subchapter; and
( b ) Apply only to drivers domiciled in that State.
#### DAVID D. ACKER and Others, Respondents, *v.*JACOB HAUTEMANN, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

*Action to recover the possession of .personal property*— a *seizwre of the chattels gives the court juiisdiciion of the action*— When *the service of an order of arrest before the service of the summons will be sustained*— *Oode of Oivil Procedure, secs.*416, 1698.

Appeal from an order made at a Special Term denying a motion to vacate an order of arrest against Jacob Hautemann, one of the defendants above named.

This action was commenced on the 5th day of December, 1881, by the issuing of the summons herein, and by the seizure in replevin of certain goods which the plaintiffs claim as belonging to them. The sheriff who made. the seizure was provided with copies of the summons for service on both of the two defendants herein. Such service was made on defendant Gottschalk on the 5th day of December, 1881, and on the defendant Hautemann on the 17th day of December, 1881. On the 12th day of December, 1881, an order of arrest was granted by Hon. Charles Donohue against said defendant Hautemann, and on the same day said Hautemann was arrested, and gave bail in the sum of $1,500. On the 15th day of December, 1881, an order to show cause “ why said order of arrest should not be vacated for non-service of summons ” was granted, returnable on'the 19th day of December, 1881; but the motion to vacate was in fact heard on the 20th day of December, 1881.

The court at General Term said: “ The error of the sheriff in not delivering the summons with the other papers was not fatal to the jurisdiction of the court. That jurisdiction is preserved by section 1693 of the Code, when read in connection with section 416. The action was brought to recover possession of personal property, and the effect of the neglect of the sheriff to make seivice of the summons wras that the chattels were replevied before the service of the summons. The seizure, therefore, must be deemed as equivalent to the granting of a provisional remedy for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to che court and enabling it to control the subsequent proceedings in the action, and as equivalent to the commencement of the action for the purpose of determining whether or not *49the plaintiff had a right to maintain the action, or the defendant is liable thereto.

“Section 416 provides that from the time of granting a provisional remedy the court acquires jurisdiction of the case, and has control of all the subsequent proceedings.

“ The summons in this case was afterwards served by the sheriff, and the defect was thereby cured. It had previously been served on the other defendant.

“We see no reason to doubt that the provisions of the sections quoted uphold the ruling of the court below. The order should be affirmed.”

*Geo. W.*Galinger, for the appellant.

*David D. Aclcer, Jr.,*for the respondents.

Opinion

*Per Curiam.*

Present — Davis, P. J.,. Ready and Ingalls, JJ

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1959

To repeal the Walsh-Healey Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 29, 1995

Mr. FAWELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Economic and

Educational Opportunities, for a period to be subsequently determined by

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To repeal the Walsh-Healey Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. WALSH-HEALEY REPEAL.

4 The Act of June 30, 1936 (41 U.S.C. 35–45) (known

5 as the Walsh-Healey Act) is repealed.

Æ
§ 72.40-20 Guards in dangerous places. ( a ) Suitable covers, guards, or rails shall be installed in way of all exposed and dangerous places such as gears, machinery, etc.
( b ) [Reserved]
* 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. 97-50600 c/w 

No. 97-50601

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTURO MOLINA-MORENO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC Nos. EP-96-CR-764-1 & EP-92-CR-115-6

- - - - - - - - - -

April 8, 1998

Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arturo Molina-Moreno (Molina) appeals the sentence imposed

on revocation of supervised release, arguing that it is plainly

unreasonable. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the

parties and conclude that the 24-month sentence imposed is not

unreasonable given the mandates of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g), the

maximum sentence of 24 months delineated by that statute, and the

circumstances of the offense that generated the revocation. See

United States v. Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091, 1092-93, (5th Cir.

1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1008 (1995); United States v. 
No. 97-50600 c/w 97-50601

-2-

Headrick, 963 F.2d 777, 782 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v.

Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 93 n.13 (5th Cir. 1994). 

AFFIRMED.
#### § 35.40-7 Carbon dioxide and clean agent alarms—T/ALL.

Each carbon dioxide or clean agent fire extinguishing alarm installed after November 19, 1952, must be conspicuously marked: “WHEN ALARM SOUNDS VACATE AT ONCE. [CARBON DIOXIDE/CLEAN AGENT—as appropriate] BEING RELEASED.”

[USCG-2006-24797, 77 FR 33874, June 7, 2012]