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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         365,094
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,274,699
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,423,465
<INVENTORY>                                 20,996,852
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           54,921,598
<PP&E>                                      34,459,912
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,180,829
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             156,920,663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,252,538
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,702
<OTHER-SE>                                  73,045,516
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               156,920,663
<SALES>                                     33,504,037
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            33,504,037
<CGS>                                       22,548,216
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,548,216
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (12,983)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             709,490
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,200,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                   946,232
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,254,308
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,254,308
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          91,431
<SECURITIES>                                   960,991
<RECEIVABLES>                                  384,059
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               942,674
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,063,651
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,802
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,092,136
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,060,849
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,063,651
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               516,600
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               126,796
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              77,317
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                467,121
<INCOME-TAX>                                   467,121
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   467,121
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
Hoffman argues that the decision to close the proceedings to a

supplemental petition is arbitrary and capricious. Hoffman argues that the district court should be estopped from enforcing a filing-deadline because such a deadline has never been enforced in the past and Hoffman argues that there was no notice that the State would seek to close theproceedings Hoffman suggests that a more appropriate remedy for postconviction counsel's failure to file a timely supplement may have been to remove counsel from the case and appoint new counsel.

"A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." See Int'l Game Tech., Inc. u. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see also NRS 34.160. A writ of prohibition may issue when a district court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. See NRS 34.320.

Based upon our review of the documents before this court, we deny Hoffman's petition for a writ of prohibition, but grant Hoffman's petition for a writ of mandamus. While we reject Hoffman's equitable estoppel and notice arguments and disagree with Hoffman regarding a filing-deadline for a supplemental petition, see NRS 34.750(3) (providing for 30 days from the date of appointment to file a supplemental petition), we agree that the remedy chosen by the district court was unduly harsh to Hoffman and was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion. The failure to file a timely supplemental petition was due to the dereliction of post-conviction counsel, Ms. Mary Lou Wilson, to meet the deadline and the remedy should have been tailored to that dereliction—chiefly, the

SUPREME COURT OF 2 NEVADA
(0) 1947A ce>

### removal of Ms. Wilson from the case and the appointment of new postconviction counsel) Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition GRANTED, in part, AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUSinstructing the district court to rescind its prior order closing the postconviction proceedings, remove Ms. Wilson as counsel in the postconviction proceedings, and appoint new counsel to assist Hoffman in the proceedings. 2

J.

Douglas

cc: Hon. Jerome M. Polaha, District Judge Mary Lou Wilson Craig Allen Hoffman Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk
'The district court has already determined that the appointment of post-conviction counsel was warranted in this case. See NRS 34.750(I).

2 

### Ms. Wilson is cautioned that such future dereliction may result in other sanctions considered necessary by the district court, including referral to the State Bar of Nevada. 

## --C24)te‘s"S t r Parraguirre

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 3

(0) 1947A 9e0
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

 

Registration No. 333-35460

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (2)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO. 070				Trade Date: 04/18/01
(To Prospectus Supplement & Prospectus dated

September 8, 2000)						Issue Date: 05/01/01
The Date of this Pricing Supplement April 18, 2001
SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

CUSIP									Date and terms of redemption or

or	Stated				 Interest			repayment (including any

Common	Interest		 Price to	 Discounts & Payment	Survivors		applicable regular or special

Code	Rate (1)	Maturity	Public (2) Commissions Frequency	 Option	Yes/No	record dates)

14911QCX7 6%	05/15/06	100%	 .25% Semi-Annually	 YES	 NO	

 

 

Original Issue Discount Note:					Total Amount of OID:

____ Yes	 X No						N/A

 

 
- The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.
- Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount. Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
**Exhibit3.1A**

 

**AMERICANRESIDENTIAL INVESTMENT TRUST, INC.**

**ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT**

 

AmericanResidential Investment Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation, having itsprincipal office in Baltimore City, Maryland (which is hereinafter called the“Corporation”), hereby certifies to the State Department of Assessments andTaxation of Maryland that:

 

**FIRST:**   The Charter of theCorporation is hereby amended as follows:

 

Article I of the Charter is amended in its entirety to readas follows:

 

The name of the corporation (which hereinafter called the“Corporation”) is:

 

AmNet Mortgage, Inc.

 

**SECOND:**  The foregoing amendmentdoes not increase the authorized stock of the Corporation.

** **

**THIRD:**  The foregoing amendmentto the Charter of the Corporation has been approved by a majority of the entireBoard of Directors the amendment is limited to a change expressly permitted bySection 2-105(a)(12) or Section 2-605 of the Maryland General Corporation Lawto be made without action by the stockholders.

** **

**FOURTH:**  The foregoing amendmentto the Charter of the Corporation shall become effective upon acceptance forrecord by the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation.

** **

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, American Residential InvestmentTrust, Inc. has caused these presents to be signed in its name and on itsbehalf by its President and witnessed by its Secretary as of May 5, 2004.

 
|     | American Residential  Investment Trust, Inc. |
|----------|----------------------------------------------|
|     |                                         |
|     |                                         |
| WITNESS: |                                         |   | By: |   |   |
|     | Secretary                                    |   | President |
|          |                                              |  |  |  |  |  |

 

 

THEUNDERSIGNED, President of American Residential Investment Trust, who executedon behalf of the Corporation the foregoing Articles of Amendment of which thiscertificate is made a part, hereby acknowledges in the name and on behalf ofsaid Corporation the foregoing Articles of Amendment to be the corporate act ofsaid Corporation and hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge,information, and belief the matters and facts set forth therein with respect tothe authorization and approval thereof are true in all material respects underthe penalties of perjury.

 

 
|   |      |   |
|--------|-----------|--------|
|   | President |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Bruce R. York, Chief Financial Officerof MDRNA, Inc. (“MDRNA”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of MDRNA on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of MDRNA. 

 

Date: April 8, 2009 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MDRNA and will be retained by MDRNA and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies each periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, exceptto the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by MDRNA for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# 

# CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION

POWERNOTES (SM)

With Maturities of 9 months or more from Date of Issue

Registration No.  333-97047

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424 (b) (3)

PRICING SUPPLEMENT NO.  346                                                                   Trade Date:  10/06/03

(To Prospectus Supplement dated August 15, 2002 &

  Prospectus dated August  8,2002)                                                                Issue Date:   10/09/03

The Date of this Pricing SupplementOctober 6, 2003

SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION OR REPAYMENT

 CUSIP                                                                                                                                   Date and terms of redemption or

     or       Stated                                                                   Interest                                       repayment (includingany

Common  Interest                      Price to  Discounts &        Payment     Survivors                  applicable regular or special

  Code      Rate (1)   Maturity  Public (2) Commissions       Frequency       Option  Yes/No     record dates)

14911QQJ3   4.00%          04/15/11           100%              1.10%                  Semi-Annually          YES          NO                

                       

                          

Principal                                                                                 1st Payment             Day         

Amount                  Proceeds                  Dealer                           Date                   Count

$1,093,000.00         $1,080,977.00         ABN AMRO Inc.        04/15/04                               30/360    

Original Issue DiscountNote:                                                                          Total Amount of OID:

____  Yes                X   No                                                                                  N/A

The interest rates on the PowerNotes (SM) may be changed by Caterpillar Financial Services Corporation from time to time, but any such change will not affect the interest rate on any PowerNotes (SM) offered prior to the effective date of the change.  Prior to the date of this Pricing Supplement, $296.189 mm principal amount of the PowerNotes (SM) were sold at interest rates then in effect.  Subsequent offerings of PowerNotes (SM) will be made under the Prospectus Supplement and Prospectus dated August 8,2002.

Expressed as a percentage of aggregate principal amount.  Actual Price to Public may be less, and will be determined by prevailing market prices at the time of purchase as set forth in the confirmation sheet.
#### Edward J. Kelsey and others, Respondents, v. James Sargeant and others, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.;

BaiLtu, J., not sitting.
From: jwalker@elmwoodbaptist.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:43:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jason Walker

Brighton, CO 80601
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA New Aging Treatment for Improving Cryogenic Toughness of the Main Structural Alloy of the Super Lightweight TankMarshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) has developed a new technique that can enhance cryogenic fracture toughness and reduce the statistical spread of toughness values in alloy 2195. This aging treatment can control the location and size of strengthening precipitate T1, making improvements possible in cryogenic fracture toughness (CFT) and fracture toughness ratio (FTR). At the start of this program, design of experiments (DOE) ingot No. 10 was used as a baseline for aging process development and optimization. The new aging treatment was found to be very effective, improving CFT by approximately 15 to 20 percent for DOE ingot No. 10. To further evaluate the repeatability and effectiveness of this new treatment, the investigators selected and tested three more lots of alloy 2195, using 1.75-in-thick gauge plates with FTR values ranging from 0.85 to 1.07. The new aging treatment effectively enhanced CFT and FTR values for all three lots. In one instance, the material was considered rejectable because it did not meet the minimum FTR value (1.0) of the super lightweight tank (SLWT). The new aging treatment improved its FTR from 0.85 to 1.01, making this material acceptable for use in the SLWT.Document ID19970005060Acquisition SourceMarshall Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsChen, P. S.*(IIT Research Inst. Chicago, IL United States)*Stanton, W. P.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1996Subject CategoryMetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-108524NAS 1.15:108524Accession Number97N13045Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970005060.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAVIER JIMENEZ-JIMENEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D23-1463

[August 24, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Laurie E. Buchanan, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 2010CF000203C.

Javier Jimenez-Jimenez, Daytona Beach, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Home
  MEDIA
  NEWS ARTICLES
  News Article View
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
No. 472, Misc.

#### Hayes *v.*New York.

Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department. Certiorari denied.
## 1

## ~. I 

### ,. I**~** 

## ' 

# fl-4' J

3.**En~yclopedia** of Occupational Health and Safety. Volume 1.**Gen~va**

## 1 International Labor Office, 1971-72. PP• 220-221, 

# '"'



# c


# ....

I 

# 0 01 0)
No. 504, Misc.

#### Ruark *v.*Colorado.

Supreme Court of Colorado. Certiorari denied.
Case No. 14,151.

#### TRAVERS v. HIGHT.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 41.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

June Term. 1812.

Affidavit — To Hold to Bail — Sufficiency.

The account was headed “George W. Hight to Esias Travers, Dr., for articles furnished by his direction, and he to be answerable for the payment thereof.” Among other items was a charge for rations for the officers, &c., (George W. Hight being a recruiting officer.) An affidavit of the plaintiff was indorsed on the paper, “that the within account is just and true as stated.”

Mr. Jones, for plaintiff.

Mr. Caldwell, for defendant

THE COURT

(PITZHUGH, Circuit Judge, absent)

said it was not sufficient. It was neither a positive affidavit tha.t the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in a certain sum; nor was it such an affidavit as made the account evidence per se, under the act of assembly of Maryland, 1729 (chapter 20, § 9), according to the rule in the case of Smith v. Watson [Case No. 13,124], at June term, 1806, in Washington.