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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-02-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,911
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,399
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,815)
<INVENTORY>                                    441,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               531,784
<PP&E>                                         207,068
<DEPRECIATION>                                (98,534)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 665,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          209,698
<BONDS>                                         81,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           278
<OTHER-SE>                                     115,289
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   665,222
<SALES>                                        269,402
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               269,402
<CGS>                                          139,251
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  246,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,874
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,012
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,862
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (741)
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,121
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC

 AMENDED NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC ON INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED WITH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND GUIDANCE ON THE ROLE OF SETTLEMENT JUDGES

(Issued December 15, 2016)

On October 15, 2003, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued a notice to the public titled *Information to be Provided with Settlement Agreements*(October 2003 Notice).[footnoteRef:2]  The October 2003 Notice mandated that the Explanatory Statement, which is required to accompany filed settlement agreements pursuant to Rule 602(c)(1)(ii) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure,[footnoteRef:3] must also address five specific questions.[footnoteRef:4] [2:  The October 2003 Notice was corrected by an errata issued on October 23, 2003.]  [3:  18 C.F.R. § 385.602(c)(1)(ii) (2016).]  [4:  The five stated questions listed by the October 2003 Notice were: (a) What are the issues underlying the settlement and what are the major implications; (b) Whether any of the issues raise policy implications; (c) Whether other pending cases may be affected; (d) Whether the settlement involves issues of first impression, or if there are any previous reversals on the issues involved; and (e) Whether the proceeding is subject to the just and reasonable standard or whether there is Mobile-Sierra language making it the standard, i.e., the applicable standards of review.] 

The October 2003 Notice is hereby amended.  The five specific questions are amended to four, to read as follows:  a) Does the settlement affect other pending cases; (b) Does the settlement involve issues of first impression; (c) Does the settlement depart from Commission precedent [if so, identify by case name(s) and docket numbers (s)]; and (d) Does the settlement seek to impose a standard of review other than the ordinary just and reasonable standard with respect to any changes to the settlement that might be sought by either a third party or the Commission acting *sua sponte*.  The presiding administrative law judge’s or settlement judge’s certification of a settlement need only address these questions if they raise matters the discussion of which will aid the Commission in resolving the case.

The Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure establish powers and duties for presiding administrative law judges and settlement judges under Rules 504 and 603(g), and specific procedures that govern filed offers of settlement under Rule 602.[footnoteRef:5] Presiding administrative law judges and settlement judges, in reviewing filed offers of settlements, may request that the participants correct any errors or deficiencies in the filed documents before certification to the Commission. [5:  18 C.F.R. §§ 385.504, .602, .603(g) (2016); see generally Cities of Anaheim v. Cal. Indep. System Operator Corp., 101 FERC ¶ 61,392, at PP 10-13 (2002).] 

Carmen A. Cintron

Chief Administrative Law Judge
Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants

To the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of ebank.com, Inc.

We  have  reviewed  the  accompanying   consolidated   financial  statements  of
ebank.com,  Inc. and  subsidiaries as of March 31, 2000, and for the three-month
period  then   ended.   These   consolidated   financial   statements   are  the
responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with  generally  accepted  auditing  standards,  the  objective  of which is the
expression of an opinion  regarding the financial  statements  taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the accompanying  consolidated financial statements for them to be in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
May 15, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 73037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23424]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Member Conflict: Respiratory Sciences.
    Date: December 14, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Ghenima Dirami, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of 
Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4122, MSC 7814, Bethesda, MD 
20892, 240-498-7546, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b0f02190a06020c2b08181945050203450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f7b766d7e7276785f7c6c6d3171767731787069">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 19, 2023.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-23424 Filed 10-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-28-1998
<CASH>                                           8,224
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,803
<INVENTORY>                                     16,379
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,776
<PP&E>                                          63,890
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,869
<BONDS>                                         24,396
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,335
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,794
<SALES>                                        208,885
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               213,812
<CGS>                                          181,264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  181,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,050
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    218
<INCOME-TAX>                                        85
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                133
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       133
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        


</TABLE>
Before Judge Watson,

July 20, 1967

No. R67/90.

No. R67/91.

No. R67/92.

No. R67/93.

#### Dana Parfumes Corp. et al. *v.*United States, reappraisements R64/8572, etc. (New York). Dana Parfumes Corp. *v.*United States, reappraisements R64/22889, etc. (New York). Dana Parfumes Corp. *v.*United States, reappraisements R65/9524, etc. (New York). Dana Parfumes Corp. *v.*United States, reappraisements R65/23524, etc. (New York).

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 727, A.R.D. 210), the court found and held that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a (f), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplication Act of 1956, is the proper basis for the determination of the respective values of the “Canoe” cologne involved herein and that such values are the respective values listed in schedule “B,” said schedule “B” being attached to and made a part of the decisions, plus the pro rata share of the cost of packing as indicated on the invoices.
WILLIE DAVID GOLDSMITH, 

JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4023

Opinion filed April 26, 2017.

An appeal from an order of the Walton County Circuit Court.

Kelvin C. Wells, Judge.

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Laurel Cornell Niles, Assistant Public Defender, 

Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., MAKAR and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.i


                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This Amendment to Employment Agreement is dated as of January 22, 1999
(the "Amendment"), by and between New Directions Manufacturing, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company") and Donald A. Metke ("Employee") (collectively, the
"Parties"). All undefined capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth
for them in the Employment Agreement between the Parties hereto effective as of
December 31, 1996 (the "Agreement").

         1. The Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

         The Agreement has a term of three years from December 31, 1996, meaning
it will expire on December 31, 1999. The Board of Directors of the Company have
approved this Amendment to the Agreement extending the term of the Agreement for
an additional three years, meaning the Agreement will now expire on December 31,
2002.

         2. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall be one and the
same document.

         3. This Amendment shall be governed and construed in accordance with
the laws of the State of Nevada.

         4. Except as otherwise set forth herein, the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have duly executed this
Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the date first above written.

                                    THE COMPANY

                                    NEW DIRECTIONS MANUFACTURING, INC.
                                    a Nevada corporation


                                    /s/ Donald A. Metke
                                    ----------------------------------
                                    BY:  Donald A. Metke
                                    ITS:  President

                                    EMPLOYEE


                                    /s/ Donald A. Metke
                                    ----------------------------------
                                    Donald A. Metke
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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  Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Intrepid Holdings,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2005 as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I,  Maurice  Stone,  Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

     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  aspects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of operations of the
Company.


Date:  May  9,  2006


/s/ Maurice Stone
-------------------------------
Maurice  Stone
Chief  Executive  Officer

<PAGE>
No. 60685.

#### Davies Turner & Company *v.*United States,

protest 229030-K/5123 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of speedometer parts similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Industrial Operations, Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 82, C. D. 1500), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.’s 333-133926 and No. 333-126614) pertaining to the CryoCor, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, 2000 Stock Option Plan, 2005 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan and2005 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of our report dated February 21, 2007 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of CryoCor, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG, LLP 

San Diego, California 

March 29, 2007
Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) mM or 

From: Mark Lovin [miovin®pueblo.us] ^i !'-;i'''^'d^'"v-.'->i.!^--, 

Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:14 PM i;ri OPhRni lUri: 

To: Schlemmer, Kevin (OST) 

Subject: RE: Cornmunity comments were due Oct. 12 ., ^,- ,-, o ii-?Q 

Kevin, I apologize for that. We do not have any operational concerns regarding the Great Lakes service in Pueblo. During 

the previous year, Great Lakes have improved the reliability and timeliness of the service as well as adding a 4'^ flight, 

mid-morning flight. These changes continue to result in positive growth numbers for Pueblo. Obviously, the City of 

Pueblo prefers the higher subsidy rate of 3 flights per day. However, we recognize the DOT service level of Option 1, 2 

flights per day. 

Thanks for soliciting our feedback and give my regards to Dennis. 

Please contact me at 719-553-2760 if you have any questions. 

Mark 

From: Kevin.Schlemmer(g)dot.qov rmailto:Kevin.Schlemmer(ja)dot.qov1 

Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 8:48 AM 

To: Mark Lovin 

Subject: Community comments were due Oct. 12 

Comments from Pueblo were due yesterday. I haven't received any. 

Would you confirm if you and the City Manager are/are not sending comments? 

Regards, 

Kevin 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

202-366-3176 phone 

202-366-7638 fax 

This e-mail transmission (including any attachments) contains information that is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the use of the 

addressee only. If you received this e-mail in error, we request that you contact us immediately by telephone or return e-mail, and that you delete this message 

from your computer. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DAVID TERRY KIDD, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. RUFUS FLEMING, Warden; FRANK MARDAVICH, Assistant Warden, Treatment; DAVID ROBINSON, Assistant Warden, Operations; KIMBERLEY H. RUNION, Operations Officer; KEITH DAVIS, T.P.S.; JAMES F. HOOKE, Psychologist; CARLMANIS, Counselor; SALLY OVERTONBARKSDALE, Counselor; MARIE OAKES, Counselor; ROBYN M. No. 95-7852 CLIFTON, Former Counselor; SERGEANT WILSON, Building Sergeant, 8-4 Shift; L. E. NELSON; B. STITH; FRED W. GREENE; DAVID R. GRAHAM; CASSANDRA TAYLOR; MR. MCCORMIC; RON BOWEN; SERGEANT LEGGE; R. MACKLIN, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees, and DAWN HANES, Psychologist, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-483-2) Submitted: March 26, 1996Decided: May 21, 1996 Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL David Terry Kidd, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Martha Murphey Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Kidd v. Fleming , No. CA-94-483-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 1995). We dispensewith 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.
AFFIRMED
2
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

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 American Apparel Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Adrian Kowalewski, Chief Financial Officer of American Apparel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of our as of and for the period
covered by the Report.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 31, 2010



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/    ADRIAN
KOWALEWSKI
|Adrian Kowalewski       
|Chief Financial Officer
Case No. 7,752.

#### KEZIAH v. SLYE.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 463.] 3

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1834.

Slavery — Mabtland Registry Act — Petition for Freedom.

A slave imported into the county of Washington, from Virginia, under the 9th section of the Maryland act of 1796 (chapter 67), is entitled to freedom, unless recorded within three months thereafter.

The petitioner [a negress] belonged to the defendant’s wife, and was brought from Virginia to Washington, under the 9th section of the Maryland act of 1796 (chapter .67), but was not recorded within three months thereafter, as required by the statute.

Mr. Wallach, for petitioner.

Mr. Marbury, for defendant [Thomas G. Slye], contended that the omission was not with any fraudulent intent.

3

 [Reported by Hon. William Craneh, Chief .Judge.]

But

THE COURT

(nem. con.) was of opinion that the neglect was fatal.

Verdict for the petitioner.
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 The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Salem Communications Corporation (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on his knowledge: · the Quarterly report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  · the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: May 9, 2011By: /s/ EVAN D. MASYREvan D. MasyrSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer