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

<ARTICLE> 5 <LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND RELATED NOTES
CONTAINED IN THIS FILING AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         506,614
<SECURITIES>                                   130,061
<RECEIVABLES>                                  419,408
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,162
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,281,795
<PP&E>                                         378,144
<DEPRECIATION>                                 206,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,708,681
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          766,304
<BONDS>                                         69,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,779
<OTHER-SE>                                     777,164
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,708,681
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               795,573
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  770,885
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   247
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,007
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,552
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,819
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,733
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,733
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12


</TABLE>
No. 63904.

protest 320372-K (New York).

#### Dux Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 39, C.A.D. 669), the claim at 20 percent under the provision in paragraph 412, as modified by T.D. 51802, for “Furniture, * * * Chairs,” was sustained. The items marked “B,” stipulated to consist of furniture the same as that in C.A.D. 669. *supra,*were held dutiable at 12% percent under the provision in said paragraph 412, as modified, *supra,*for other furniture.
H. Res. 790 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

February 14, 2008. 

Whereas every day, American men and women risk their lives 

serving the country in the Armed Forces; 

Whereas it is important to many Americans to be able to donate money directly to causes about which they care; 

Whereas it is important for residents to have a tangible way 

to demonstrate their support for veterans; 

Whereas despite Government funding for the Nation’s veterans, many important needs of veterans remain unmet; 

Whereas citizens in the State of Washington have banded together in a grassroots effort to create a Veterans Family 

Fund Certificate of Deposit; 

Whereas any financial institution in the State of Washington 

can choose to offer a Veterans Family Fund Certificate 

of Deposit; 

Whereas the Bank of Clark County has become the first institution to offer these Certificates of Deposit; 

Whereas the Governor of the State of Washington and the 

Washington State Veterans Affairs Department have expressed the State’s support for this program; 

Whereas when a person buys a Veterans Family Fund Certificate of Deposit from a participating financial institu-
2 

•HRES 790 EH 

tion, half of the interest is automatically donated to the 

State of Washington’s Veterans Innovation Program to 

address the unmet needs of the State of Washington’s 

veterans and their families; 

Whereas the Veterans Innovation Program provides emergency assistance to help current or former Washington 

National Guard or Reserve service members cope with financial hardships, unemployment, educational needs, and 

many basic family necessities; and 

Whereas the Veterans Family Fund Certificate of Deposit 

will be officially launched on November 8, 2007: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) commends the people of the State of Washington for showing their support for the needs of the 

State of Washington’s veterans; and 

(2) encourages residents of other States to pursue 

creative ways to show their own support for veterans. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
No. 65247.

#### M. E. Heymes & Company *v.*United States,

protests 266237-K, etc. (Galveston).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the' merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *The Best Foods, Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 163, C.A.D. 751), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
I, Kenneth Edmundson, the President, CEO and Chief Financial Officer of Claridge Ventures, Inc. (the Registrant), certify that; (1)I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant;(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 Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;(4)I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) for the Registrant and have:a)Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my 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; andc)Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and(5)I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrant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 Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting.  March 28, 2012/s/Kenneth EdmundsonBy:Kenneth EdmundsonPresident, CEOand Chief Financial Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: � Oil and gas in Louisiana: with a brief summaryof their occurrence in adjacent states**
 
Report | Plate
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:429
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958901
 
August 1, 2018
Order entered July 16, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00243-CR

STEVEN LYNN JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401-82891-2011

ORDER

The Court GRANTS appellant’s July 14, 2014 second motion for extension of time to 

file appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file the brief within TEN (10) DAYS from the date of this 

order.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6523
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD FLOYD JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge. (CR-90-254, CA-92-1794-4-2BC) Submitted: October 23, 1997 Decided: November 14, 1997 Before HAMILTON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Floyd Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. William Earl Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)and the order declining to reconsider the judgment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting therecommendation of the magistrate judge and the order denying Appellant's post-judgment motion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jackson , Nos. CR-90-254; CA-92-1794-4-2BC (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 1996; Mar. 21, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 53303.

protests 134887-K/12935, etc. (New Orleans).

#### Tropical Craft Corporation, Successors to Tropical Craft Import & Export Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of sisal handbags similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case No. 8,827.

#### McINTOSH v. SUMMERS.

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

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1801.

Contuacts — In Writing — Novation—Oral Agreement.

Oral evidence of an agreement that the defendant should retain certain notes as security against other notes, may be given although there be a written agreement to return them on demand.

Trover for sundry notes. Evidence was given of a demand and refusal, the defendant stating that he held them as counter security to indemnify him against his indorsement of a note held by Tafts and Brooks. Evidence on the part of the defendant was produced of conversations between the plaintiff and defendant in which it was agreed, or understood that the latter was to retain the notes for that purpose.

Mr. Lee, for plaintiff,

moved the court to instruct the jury that an oral agreement to leave the notes in his possession could not control the written agreement to return them on demand. Which instruction the court refused to give; and a bill of exceptions was taken, but the case was never carried to the supreme court, the verdict being for the plaintiff.

THE COURT

instructed the jury that if they should be of opinion that McIntosh had agreed that the papers should be left with Summers for that purpose, then he had a lien on them: and that in such case his refusal was no evidence of a conversion.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Usinghousehold and intrahousehold data to assess food insecurity : evidence fromBangladesh**
 
Summary | Report
 
SuDoc Number:A 93.73:190
Item Number:0042-V (online)
CGP systemNumber:000959423
 
August 6, 2018
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form 10-SB of our report
on  YouthLine  USA,  Inc.  and  Subsidiary   dated  February  22,  2000  on  our
examinations  for the years ended December 31, 1998 and 1999. We also consent to
the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts".



MICHAEL C. FINKELSTEIN

Morganville, New Jersey
Certified Public Accountant
March 10, 2000
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s

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 April 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40020 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS MARGARITO PECENO-MONTANEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas, Laredo

USDC No. 5:04-CR-1414-ALL
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

This court previously affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Appellant Margarito Peceno-Montanez (“Montanez”). On December 11, 2006, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the
case for reconsideration in light of Lopez v. Gonzalez , 127 S. Ct. 625 (2006).2 In light of Lopez , the district court erred by enhancing Montanez’s sentence based on a Texas conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance. Because Montanez has completed the confinement portion of his sentence, any argument that the prison term should be reduced is moot and the only portion of the sentence remaining for consideration is the defendant’s term of supervised release.

However, as the Federal Public Defender notes, Montanez presumably has been deported. In order to resentence him and reduce his term of supervised release, FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 43 requires the defendant to be present and have the opportunity to allocute. Because the defendant has been deported and is legally unable, without permission of the Attorney General, to reenter the United States to be present for a resentencing proceeding, there is no relief we are able to grant Montanez and his appeal is moot. See United States v. Rosenbaum-Alanis , No. 05-41400, 2007 WL 926832 (5th Cir. March 29, 2007). The appeal is therefore DISMISSED .
#### Jerry A. OLIVER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6294.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted June 21, 2001.

Decided June 29, 2001.

Jerry A. Oliver, pro se.

Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit J.

PER CURIAM.

Jerry A. Oliver seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 *&*Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Oliver v. True,*No. CA-01-17-7 (W.D.Va. Feb. 13, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

NEIL GRENNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

EILEEN BISSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5298RJB

ORDER GRANTING

EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to complete

discovery and to filed his opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see Dkts. #39 & 36). 

After reviewing the motion and the balance of the record, the court ORDERS:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery is GRANTED. Accordingly,

the discovery deadline is extended until July 11, 2007. Plaintiff’s opposition brief in response to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before Monday, August 6, 2007, and the

motion will be noted for consideration on the court’s August 10, 2007 motion calendar. Any further

dispositive motions shall be filed on or before September 6, 2007, and the Joint Status Report will be due

on or before October 4, 2007. 

(2) The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel of record

DATED this 25th day of May, 2007.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. KELLEY ARNOLD

United States District Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05298-RJB Document 46 Filed 05/25/07 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 14 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 14

 Affirming certain findings of the President of the United States with 
      regard to programs concerning international family planning.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 4, 1997

  Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) (by request), introduced the 
 following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 
Committee on Appropriations for not to exceed 5 calendar days pursuant 
                to section 518A(a) of Public Law 104-208

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Affirming certain findings of the President of the United States with 
      regard to programs concerning international family planning.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the House of 
Representatives and Senate approve the Presidential finding, submitted 
to Congress on January 31, 1997, that the limitation on obligations 
imposed by section 518A(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997, is having a negative 
impact on the proper functioning of the population planning program.
                                 <all>
```
III

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 162

To authorize testimony and representation of Senate employees in United

States v. Blackley

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

NOVEMBER 13, 1997

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize testimony and representation of Senate

employees in United States v. Blackley

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Blackley, Criminal

Case No. 97–0166, pending in the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia, testimony has been

requested from Brent Baglien, a former employee on the

staff of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry;

Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their

official responsibilities;
2

SRES 162 ATS

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate may, by the judicial process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; and

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will

promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That Brent Baglien, and any other present

2 or former employee from whom testimony may be re3 quired, are authorized to testify in the case of United

4 States v. Blackley, except concerning matters for which

5 a privilege should be asserted.

6 SEC. 2. That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized

7 to represent Brent Baglien and any present or former

8 employee of the Senate in connection with testimony in

9 United States v. Blackley.

Æ