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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,020
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,296
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,729
<INVENTORY>                                     69,210
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               154,631
<PP&E>                                       1,333,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                 408,615
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,633,988
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          181,360
<BONDS>                                      1,702,598
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,026
<OTHER-SE>                                   (250,996)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,633,988
<SALES>                                          4,861
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               234,227
<CGS>                                           28,805
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  202,258
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,083
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,770
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,919)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,919)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (15,544)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (50,463)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.49)
        

</TABLE>
October 2, 1952

No. 56885.

Suit 4696.

#### C. J. Tower & Sons *v.*United States.

C. D. 1334 affirmed June 24, 1952. C. A. D. 493.
No. 63499.

#### Kaiser Reismann Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 59/17479 and 59/16653 (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SM&A
CORPORATION UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,926
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,186
<ALLOWANCES>                                       680
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,690
<PP&E>                                           4,722
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,203
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,175
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           159
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,584
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,743
<SALES>                                         52,241
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,241
<CGS>                                           30,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,885
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (132)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (30)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,266
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,234
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,032
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,032
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37



</TABLE>
Before the Second Division

November 6, 1961

No. 66205.

#### Kaiser Reismann Corp. et al. *v.*United States

protests 58/1004, etc.

Ford, Judge:

The 13 cases sought to be restored to the calendar of the court were alleged to be part of a group of 97 cases abandoned by counsel for the plaintiffs at the calendar call of January 9, 1961. The judgment order dismissing said cases was entered on August 25,1961.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the abandonment on September 26, 1961, which was more than 30 days from the date of entry of judgment, on the ground that said protests were inadvertently abandoned.

Since the 30th day did not fall on a Sunday or holiday, defendant opposed that motion to set aside the abandonment, on the ground that it was untimely filed.

The provisions contained in 28 U.S.O., section 2640, upon which rule 6 of the Rules of the United States Customs Court is based, provide as follows:

> § 2640. Rehearing or retrial

> A division • Which has decided a case or a single judge who has decided an appeal for a reappraisement may, upon motion of either party made within thirty days next after such decision, grant a rehearing or retrial.

*364Counsel for plaintiffs contends that the motion made by him is not one for rehearing, but is a motion for relief from a judgment or order which was based upon a mistake or inadvertence and is, accordingly, within the scope of rule 60(b) of the Federal Hules of Civil Procedure, the pertinent portions of which are as follows:

> Rule 60. Relief from Judgment or Order

> s]: * * * * *

> (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence ; Fraud, etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ** * **(6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. * * This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, * * *.

Plaintiffs also cite the ease of *Sternstein*v. *“Italia”-Societa Per Azioni Di Navigazione-Genoa,*276 F.2d 602, in support of their position. In that case, which involved a personal injury accident, the court permitted a default judgment to be set aside under the provisions of rule 60(b), *supra,*even though the motion was made after the 10 days prescribed by the rules of that court. The court, however, indicated that this provision was not intended to deprive the court of its use of discretion.

We are of the opinion that the motion involved herein is in effect one for a rehearing and is, accordingly, governed by 28 U.S.C., section 2640, which we believe to be controlling.

Accordingly, we are of the opinion that said motion should be denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1079 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1079

 To provide for equitable retirement for military reserve technicians 
 who are covered under the Federal Employment Retirement System or the 
                    Civil Service Retirement System.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 1999

Mr. Abercrombie (for himself, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Rush, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. 
Mink of Hawaii, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr. Shows, 
 Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Frost, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Payne, 
   Mr. Cook, Mr. Camp, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Sherman, Mr. 
  Jefferson, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. 
   Kleczka, Mrs. Capps, Mrs. Myrick, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Oberstar) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for equitable retirement for military reserve technicians 
 who are covered under the Federal Employment Retirement System or the 
                    Civil Service Retirement System.

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

SECTION 1. EQUITABLE RETIREMENT FOR MILITARY RESERVE TECHNICIANS.

    (a) Technicians Covered by CSRS.--Section 8336 of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(p) A military reserve technician (as that term is defined in 
section 8401(30) of this title), is entitled to an annuity if such 
technician--
            ``(1) is separated from service as a military reserve 
        technician after becoming 50 years of age and completing 20 
        years of such service; or
            ``(2) is separated from service as a military reserve 
        technician after completing 25 years of such service.''.
    (b) Technicians Covered by FERS.--Section 8414(c) of such title is 
amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) A military reserve technician is entitled to an annuity if 
such technician--
            ``(1) is separated from service as a military reserve 
        technician after becoming 50 years of age and completing 20 
        years of such service; or
            ``(2) is separated from service as a military reserve 
        technician after completing 25 years of such service.''.
    (c) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section shall apply 
with respect to a separation from service as a military reserve 
technician (as that term is defined in section 8401(30) of title 5, 
United States Code) occurring on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
I

★

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1068

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to include a definition of

audiologist.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 10, 1999

Mr. WHITFIELD (for himself and Mr. BROWN of Ohio) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to include

a definition of audiologist.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicaid Audiology

5 Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF DEFINITION OF AUDIOLOGIST.

7 Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

8 1396d) is amended—
2

HR 1068 IH1S

1 (1) in subsection (a)(13), by inserting ‘‘(includ2 ing by an audiologist, as defined in subsection (v))’’

3 after ‘‘law’’; and

4 (2) by adding at the end the following:

5 ‘‘(v) The term ‘audiologist’ means an individual with

6 a master’s or doctoral degree in audiology who—

7 ‘‘(1) is licensed as an audiologist by the State

8 in which the individual furnishes such services; or

9 ‘‘(2) in the case of an individual who furnishes

10 services in a State which does not license audiol11 ogists, has successfully completed 350 clock hours of

12 supervised clinical practicum (or is in the process of

13 accumulating such supervised clinical experience),

14 performed not less than 9 months of supervised full15 time audiology services after obtaining a master’s or

16 doctoral degree in audiology or a related field, and

17 successfully completed a national examination in

18 audiology approved by the Secretary.’’.

Æ
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1123

To exclude grants for student financial assistance from the prohibition on

certain departments and agencies of the Government making grants

to institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access to campus

or military recruiting on campus.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1999

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr. CAMPBELL) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services,

and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 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 exclude grants for student financial assistance from the

prohibition on certain departments and agencies of the

Government making grants to institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access to campus or military

recruiting on campus.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1123 IH

1 SECTION 1. GRANTS FOR STUDENT AID EXCEPTED FROM

2 PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL GRANTS TO IN3 STITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION THAT

4 PREVENT ROTC ACCESS TO CAMPUS OR MILI5 TARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

6 (a) DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION, LABOR, AND

7 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.—Section 514 of the De8 partments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and

9 Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

10 1997 (as contained in section 101(e) of division A of Pub11 lic Law 104–208; 110 Stat. 3009–270; 10 U.S.C. 503

12 note), is amended by striking ‘‘by grant (including a grant

13 of funds to be available for student aid) to a covered edu14 cational entity’’ in subsections (a) and (b) and inserting

15 ‘‘by grant to a covered educational entity, other than a

16 grant of funds to a covered educational entity to be avail17 able solely for student financial assistance or related ad18 ministrative costs,’’.

19 (b) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.—(1) Section 983 of

20 title 10, United States Code, is amended—

21 (A) by striking ‘‘No funds’’ and all that follows

22 through ‘‘student aid)’’ and inserting ‘‘Except as

23 provided in paragraph (3), no funds appropriated or

24 otherwise available to the Department of Defense

25 may be obligated by contract or by grant’’; and
3

•HR 1123 IH

1 (B) by adding at the end the following new

2 paragraph:

3 ‘‘(3) Paragraph (1) does not apply with respect to

4 grants to be available solely for student financial assist5 ance or related administrative costs.’’.

6 (2) Section 558(a) of the National Defense Author7 ization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (10 U.S.C. 503 note)

8 is amended—

9 (A) by striking ‘‘No funds’’ in paragraph (1)

10 and inserting ‘‘Except as provided in paragraph (3),

11 no funds’’; and

12 (B) by adding at the end the following new

13 paragraph:

14 ‘‘(3) Paragraph (1) does not apply with respect to

15 grants to be available solely for student financial assist16 ance or related administrative costs.’’.

Æ
No. 52452.

protest 120502-K (Laredo).

#### Thompson Mahogany Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

At the trial the plaintiff established that the imported lumber consisted of mahogany which had been sawed into boards arid then planed on one edge. It was also established that as imported, the lumber was not dedicated to any particular use, and was not flooring. Upon the record it was held that the lumber was entitled to free entry under paragraph 1803, as claimed. *Thompson Mahogany Co.*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 204, C. D. 894) cited.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BRETT HARDING

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 22

- 00117

- C R

Appeal from the

42 nd District Court

of Taylor C ounty, Texas

(TC# 28762A )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’s second motion for extension of time within which to file

the brief until January 30 , 202 3

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE THE STATE ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. James Hicks

, the State ’s attorney, prepare the

State ’s brief and forward t he same to this Court on or before January 30 , 202 3

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 7 th day o f January , 202 3

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez , C.J., Palafox , and Soto , JJ.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1089

To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to require the improved

disclosure of after-tax returns regarding mutual fund performance, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 11, 1999

Mr. GILLMOR (for himself, Mr. OXLEY, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. TOWNS, Mr.

WHITFIELD, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr.

BURR of North Carolina, Mr. TAUZIN, and Mr. HALL of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to require the improved disclosure of after-tax returns regarding mutual fund performance, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mutual Fund Tax

5 Awareness Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds the following:
2

•HR 1089 IH

1 (1) Taxes can be the single biggest cost associ2 ated with mutual funds. The average stock fund in3 vestor has lost up to 3 percentage points of return

4 every year to taxes.

5 (2) The average portfolio turnover rate for an

6 actively managed (nonindex) fund has increased

7 from 30 percent 20 years ago to almost 90 percent

8 today, and average capital gains distributions of

9 growth funds, per share, have more than doubled in

10 the last 10 years.

11 (3) If a fund’s performance is based mostly on

12 short-term gains, investors can lose a significant

13 part of their return to taxes.

14 (4) Performance figures that investment compa15 nies generally disclose to their shareholders are net

16 of fees and expenses, but not taxes, and therefore do

17 not represent the impact taxes have on an investor’s

18 return.

19 (5) This disclosure focuses on how much money

20 investors made before taxes, and not on how much

21 money investors actually got to keep.

22 (6) Improved disclosure of tax efficiency would

23 allow shareholders to compare after-tax returns to

24 raw performance, and would permit the investors to
3

•HR 1089 IH

1 determine whether the fund manager tries to mini2 mize tax consequences for shareholders.

3 (7) While the investment company prospectus

4 details the average annual portfolio turnover rate,

5 the prospectus may not expressly inform sharehold6 ers about the impact the portfolio turnover rate has

7 on total returns.

8 SEC. 3. IMPROVEMENTS IN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

9 Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act,

10 the Securities and Exchange Commission shall revise reg11 ulations under the Investment Company Act of 1940 to

12 require, consistent with the protection of investors and the

13 public interest, improved methods of disclosing in invest14 ment company prospectuses and annual reports the after15 tax effects of portfolio turnover on investment company

16 returns to investors.

Æ
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-12-00565- CV Jack Wesley M oncrief, Appellan t

v. Betty M oncrief, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 201 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. F M5 -05 032, H ONO RAB LE RHO NDA HURLEY , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant J ack Wesley Moncrief has i nformed this Court that he n o l o n g er wishes to pursue his appea l and has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss
. Appellant’s counsel states that he has c onfer

red w ith counsel for appellee Be tty Moncrief , who does not oppose this moti on. We g rant the motion and dismiss the appea l. Tex. R . App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________ J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: January

11, 2013
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, Xiali
Gan, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Dragon
International Group Corp. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Dragon International Group Corp.





November
13, 2008




By:
/s/ Xiali Gan


Xiali
Gan, Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
Accounting Officer)





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Dragon International Group Corp. and will be retained by Dragon International
Group Corp. and furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

,

Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 30 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk June 30 , 2017

15 5 42 8

- 9 ( 71 )

KATIE BARKER

, Personal Representative

of the Estate of PERRY PACE,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 155428

v COA: 328584

Genesee CC : 13

- 100524

- NH

HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER, DR. JOHN DOE,

DENIKA LLOYD, NURSE 1 JANE DOE,

NURSE 2 JANE DOE, and NURSE 3 JANE DOE,

Defendants,

and

DR. PATRICK HAWLEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________ ___

KATIE BARKER

, Personal Representative

of the Estate of PERRY PACE,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 155429

v COA: 328997

C t of Claims : 13

- 000072

- MH

THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, d /b/a

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH

CENTER, d /b/ a UNIVERSITY OF MICH IGAN

HOSPITAL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________ ___ /

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of plaintiff

- appellee to extend the time

for filing her answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer

submitted on June 27, 2017, is accepted for filing.