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>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          17,711
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   910
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,989
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,600
<COMMON>                                         1,225
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,511
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,325
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,778
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   906
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,040
<INCOME-TAX>                                       296
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       744
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
January 6, 2014
Mr. Kevin Adams U.S. Department ofTransportation Office ofthe Secretary ofTransportation 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE · Washington DC 20590 Re: Request for Comment at Waterloo Dear Mr. Adams:

# ~\\- Ol7;)_

This letter is in response to your correspondence dated December 3, 2013, requesting comment on American Airlines Essential Air Service (EAS) application to serve Waterloo. We strongly support American's proposal to serve Waterloo and the greater CedarValley area. With American's recently approved mergerwith US Airways, we look forward to the additional connectivity that will be generated by the newairline combination. Since American has started serving Waterloo in 2011, Waterloo's air fares have become more competitive with other regional airports and ridership has slowly improved. Proofofthese improved results is 

### thefact thatAmerican's EAS subsidy proposal dropped byalmost 40% versus their 2011 proposal. We believe thatthis is indicative ofgood things ahead. With a population base ofapproximately 200,000 people {30 miles), Waterloo can easily support more than the current 2 times daily regional jetservice. We look forward to long, mutually prosperous relationship with American Airlines. Cordially,

Steve Wareham Acting Waterloo Regional Airport Director



### • .. f 

# .. f ) (
No. 49121.

#### Protest 481093-G of Doris H. Suen (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The merchandise was classified and claimed dutiable at the same rates and under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of said cited case the merchandise at bar was found to contain salt and was therefore *240excluded from paragraph 5 (chemical compounds). The protest was sustained to this extent.
Part 2, Section VI: USSGL Crosswalks to Reclassified

Statements

This section includes crosswalks for use in Fiscal Year 2019 GTAS Reporting. These crosswalks map

USSGL accounts to external reports in accordance with TFM Volume I, Part 2, Chapter 4700, Agency

Reporting Requirements for the Financial Report of the United States Government. Each report crosswalk

lists the proper USSGL accounts and applicable attributes for each line and/or column on the reports.

Attributes identify information subsidiary to the basic 6-digit USSGL accounts. This subsidiary information is

necessary to meet external reporting requirements. See Section IV for additional information on attributes.

The following are crosswalks from the USSGL Chart of Accounts to standard external reports required by

Fiscal Service:

Section VI Page Number

USSGL Crosswalk Reclassified Balance Sheet (RBS) VI RBS - 1

USSGL Crosswalk Reclassified Statement of Net Cost (RSNC) VI RSNC - 1

USSGL Crosswalk Reclassified Statement of Operations and

Changes in Net Position (RSOCNP)

VI RSOCNP - 1 

 

Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 8626)

Entry No. 902642.

#### Bluefries New York, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided July 13, 1956)

*Barnes, 'Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement is submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED that—

> 1. The merchandise covered by the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement consists of chocolate bars exported from Holland, the same in all material respects as those in *Bluefries New York, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 8470, wherein it was held that cost of production as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis of value.

> 2. The record in said Reap. Dec. 8470 may be incorporated herein.

> 3. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved in the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement, there was no foreign value or export value or *488United States value for such or similar merchandise as defined in Sec. 402, Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, and the cost of production is therefore the proper basis of value.

> 4. The cost of production, as defined in Sec. 402 (f), (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, for the chocolate bars covered by the above-entitled appeal for reappraisement is 90.25 Netherlands Guilder per carton.

> 5. The above-entitled appeal for reappraisement is submitted on this stipulation and is limited to chocolate bars, and abandoned as to all other items.

On the stipulated facts and on authority of the decision cited in the stipulation, I find the cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determination of value of the chocolate bars described in the invoice and entry covered by this appeal, and that such value is 90.25 Netherland guilder per carton.

The appeal as to all other abandoned merchandise is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 
 **CERTIFICATION**
 
 I, Tammy-Lynn McNabb, certify that:
 
 1.
I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Vitasti, Inc. 
 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.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
 
 5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the 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; and
 
 (b) 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.
 
 Date: January 20, 2005     /s/ Tammy-Lynn McNabb
 Tammy-Lynn McNabb, Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROLAND E. HOLMES, JR., Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant UNITED STATES, Appellee v DAVID C. HUFF, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

No. 27,993

NCM 73-1690

No. 28,033

NCM 73-1433

March 29, 1974

*Captain T. O. Tottenham,*USMCR (No. 28,033), and *Lieutenant Stephen T Myking,*JAGC, USNR (No. 27,993), were on the pleadings for Appellants, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel G. L. Bailey,*USMC, and *Lieutenant Thomas L. Earp,*JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam:

In each of these connected cases the lapse of more than 90 days between accused’s confinement and trial was the basis for a defense *motion to*dismiss for untimely prosecution. See United States v Burton, 21 USCMA 112, 44 CMR 166 (1971). The motion was denied, and the ruling was sustained by the U. S. Navy Court of Military Review.

Although the court described the offenses as complex, they essentially dealt with exertions of force or the making of threats. The victims of the alleged offenses were always available, as were eyewitnesses. The justification for the delay presented by the Government consisted largely of routine clerical mistakes and other normal and anticipatory management problems of personnel, none of which impress us as problems "beyond the control of the prosecution” justifying the delay in bringing the charges to trial. United States v Marshall, 22 USCMA 431, 434, 47 CMR 409, 412 (1973).

The decision of the Court of Military Review in each case is reversed. The findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside, and the charges as to each accused are ordered dismissed.
## Swanson , Bria n (OST) h6T-(>cr--iq^?'2?-ft 5

From : VanDerBellen , Alexande r[sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com ] , !|^'^Q:-;j'^iy|n', ! Sent : Tuesday , Apri l 05 , 201 1 2:1 2 P M : . rr'r'~p^"^', ' " To : ' •. •Devany , Denni s (OST) ; Swanson , Bria n (OST ) ' " ' ' - ' ^" ^ • Cc : Adams , Kevi n (OST ) ^ , . .. , Subject : FW : EA S Proposaljamestow n an d Devil s Lake
. North Dakot a •'< > o / \

U - 3 2 Dennis , Bria n Th e communitie s bot h supportou rreques tfo ra n extension
. Jamestow n belo wan d I wil l forwar d Devil s Lak e b yseparat e emai l Thank s fo ryou rhel p an d understanding
. -Sasch a

From : Matthe wLeitne rfmailtoijmsairDortOidaktel.com l Sent : Tuesday , Apri l 05 , 201 1 11:5 8 A M To : Hedden , Stephe n A Cc : VanDerBellen , Alexander ; Davidman , JelT ; Loeffelholz , Mary ; Morgan , JelT ; Ji m Boyd Subject : RE : EA

S Proposa l Jamestow n an d Devil s Lake , North Dakot a Goo d Afternoo n Stephen , I twa s a pleasur e t o tal k t o yo u a s well
. Pleas e le tthi s emai l serv e a s confirmatio n tha tJM S ha s n o objection s wit h respectt o th e EA S servic e proposa l submissio n deadlin e bein g extende d t o Augus t1 , 2011
. Respectfully ,

Matthe w J
. Leilner Manager Jamestow nRegionalAirpor t P C Box1560 Jamestown , N O 58402-156 0 (701 ) 252-646 6 (phone ) (701 ) 252-291 9 (fa\ ) Aiipori Informatio n
Delt a Connectio n offer s dail yschedulef l service s t o an d fro m th e Worl d vi a Minneapolis , Minnesota
. Convenien tan d FRE E parkin g i s availabl e nea rtti e airpor tterminal !

Thi s communicatio n maycontai n confidentia l and/o rproprietaryinlormatio n an d mayno tb e disclose d t o anyon e othe rtha n th e intende d addressee
. An yothe rdisclosur e i s strictl yprohibite d bylaw
. I fyo u ar e no tth e intende d addressee , yo u hav e receive d tfii s communicatio n i n error . Pleas e notifyth e sende rimmediatel yan d destro yth e communicatw n includin g al l conten tan d an y attachments
. Than h you .From : Hedden , Stephe n Armailto:Stephen.A.Hedden(iQ)delta.com ] Sent : Tuesday , Apri l 05 , 201 1 10:2 0 A M To ; 'Jamestow n Regiona l Airport ' Cc : VanDerBellen , Alexander ; Davidman , Jeff ; Loeffelholz , Mary ; Morgan , Jef f Subject : RE : EA

S Proposa l Jamestow n an d Devil s Lake , North Dakot a Matthew , I twa s goo d t o tal k

t o you . Regardin g th e EA S servic e proposal s fo rJamestow n an d Devil s Lak e tha tar e du e tomorrow , Apri l 6 , Delt a ha s approache d th e DO Tabou textendin g th e submissio n deadlin e t o Au g 1
. Th e DO Twa s agreeable , bu twant s t o mak e sur e th e communitie s ar e O Kwit h this
. Sinc e th e ne wcontrac tperio d woul d no tbegi n until Oc t1 , thi s woul d stil l allo wth e DO Ttw o month s t o revie wbid s an d receiv e comment s befor e th e en d ofth e curren tcontrac tperiod
. Pleas e le tm e kno w i fthi s i s agreeabl e wit h JMS
. Thanks , 

### Stev e Hedde n Delt a Ai rLine s Networ k Managemen t 404-773-031 1
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
ERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC

Terayon Communication Systems, Inc., a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the
"Company"), does hereby certify:

FIRST:          The name of the Company is Terayon Communication
Systems, Inc.

SECOND: The original certificate of incorporation of this
Company was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on
June 12, 1998 under the name of Terayon Merger Corporation.

THIRD:  The Board of Directors of the Company, acting in accordance
with the provisions of Sections 141 and 242 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, adopted resolutions amending the Company's Amended and
Restated Certificate of Incorporation as follows:

The first paragraph of Article IV shall be amended and
restated to read in its entirety as follows:

"This Corporation is authorized to issue two classes of
stock to be designated, respectively, "Common Stock" and
"Preferred Stock."  The total number of shares which the
corporation is authorized to issue is Two Hundred Five
Million (205,000,000) shares.  Two Hundred Million
(200,000,000) shares shall be Common Stock, each having a par
value of one tenth of one cent ($.001).  Five Million
(5,000,000) shares shall be Preferred Stock, each having a
par value of one tenth of one cent ($.001)."

FOURTH: Thereafter, pursuant to a resolution of the Board of
Directors, this Certificate of Amendment was submitted to the
stockholders of the Company for their approval, and was duly adopted in
accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of the Delaware Corporation
Law.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Certificate of
Amendment this 20th day of April 2000, and hereby affirms and
acknowledges under penalty of perjury that the filing of this Certificate
of Amendment is the act and deed of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.

        TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
                By:     /s/ Zabi Rakib

                Zaki Rakib
                        Chief Executive
No. 51979.

#### Chas. B. Chrystal Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 106867-K, etc. (New York).

*157Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise consists of powdered talc in bags similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.*v. *United States*(34 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 360). In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that in liquidating the entries the value per ton of 2,240 pounds of talc for classification purposes must be determined on the basis of the total dutiable value of the talc, including the bags, and the official gross landed weight of the talc and the bags, in order to find whether or not the talc comes within the classification of talc valued at not more than $14 per ton, dutiable at the rate of 17% percent ad valorem, rather than as talc valued at more than that amount, dutiable at 35 percent ad valorem. The collector was directed to reliquidate the entries, determine the rate of duty applicable to said merchandise, and make refund accordingly.
No. 58510.

protests 176192-K, etc. (New York).

#### Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *427*United States*v. *B. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim, of the plaintiff was sustained.
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 10/25/2023 1

Suit to Reopen Polling Places 

on an Indian Reservation 

Spirit Lake Tribe v. Benson County 

(Ralph R. Erickson, D.N.D. 2:10-cv-95) 

Approximately one month before election day, a tribe filed a federal 

complaint challenging a county decision the previous year to close 

seven out of eight polling places to promote voting by mail. The 

district judge issued a preliminary injunction reopening the two 

polling places on the tribe’s reservation on evidence that both traveling to the remaining polling place and voting by mail were especially difficult for members of the tribe. The parties converted the 

preliminary injunction into a consent decree. 

Subject: Voting procedures. Topics: Poll locations; section 2 

discrimination. 

An American Indian tribe and a voter filed a federal complaint against Benson County in the District of North Dakota on October 8, 2010, challenging 

the elimination of three polling places serving the tribe’s reservation.1 Four 

days later, the tribe filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.2 Judge Ralph 

R. Erickson set the case for hearing on October 19.3

The county eliminated seven of its eight polling places in December 2009 

as part of a move to voting by mail.4

 Judge Erickson heard evidence that travel to the remaining polling place was especially difficult and voting by mail 

was especially impractical for transient tribe members.5 Judge Erickson issued a preliminary injunction reopening two polling places within the reservation, but he denied the request to reopen a third polling place near the reservation.6

 An agreement to keep the two reservation polling places open was 

established by a consent decree approved on October 6, 2011.7

1. Complaint, Spirit Lake Tribe v. Benson County, No. 2:10-cv-95 (D.N.D. Oct. 8, 2010), 

D.E. 1; see Tribe Going to Court in Polling Site Dispute, Bismarck Trib., Oct. 12, 2010, at B1. 

2. Preliminary-Injunction Motion, Spirit Lake Tribe, No. 2:10-cv-95 (D.N.D. Oct. 10, 

2010), D.E. 10. 

3. Order, id. (Oct. 13, 2010), D.E. 13; see Minutes, id. (Oct. 19, 2010), D.E. 35. 

Judge Erickson was elevated to the court of appeals on October 12, 2017. Federal Judicial 

Center Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges, www.fjc.gov/history/judges. 

4. Opinion at 2, Spirit Lake Tribe, No. 2:10-cv-95 (D.N.D. Oct. 21, 2010), D.E. 38, 2010 

WL 4226614. 

5. Id. at 3. 

6. Id. at 1, 3, 10–11. 

7. Consent Decree, id. (Oct. 6, 2011), D.E. 61; see Dismissal, id. (May 21, 2012), D.E. 70 

(dismissing the action on the parties’ settling the matter of attorney fees).
No. 66806.

#### Associated Metals & Minerals Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 245845-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of connecting rod parts for compressor machines similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66092, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 48468.

#### Protests 93699-K, etc., of Arnhold & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Jim Kelly, Karl Baldwin, and Wood Master Homes v. Karen Tracy

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00913

- CV

Trial court case number: 1091620

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

Appellee’s counsel , E. F. Mano DeAyala and Andrew C. Wright, have filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel, explaining that appellee, Karen Tracy, passed away pending this appeal and counsel is not authorized to proceed with representation of appellee’s estate. Appellants, Jim Kelly, Karl Baldwin, and Wood Master Homes

, filed a

response oppos ing appellee’s couns el’s withdrawal before a personal representative of appell ee ’s estate is appointed and substituted in this appeal. The parties have indicated that appellee’s state is in probate but no personal representative has yet been appointed. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5 authorizes a court to permit an attorney to withdraw from representation of a client on appropriate terms and conditions. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 6.5. Accordingly, the Court denies appellee’s motion to withdraw without prejudice to refiling

after th e terms and conditions set out below are met.

The Court abates this appeal and remands to the trial court to hold a hearing, within

60 days of the date of this order, to determine whether any heir or personal representative

can substitute for appellee in this appeal

, and whether the heir or representative wish es to
file a brief. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 151, 152 , 154 ; Casillas v. Cano , 79 S.W.3d 587, 591 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg 2002, no pet.). The trial court may extend the time to hold

a hearing on any party’s motion

.
We order the county clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record, and the court reporter to file a supplemental reporter’s record, if any, within 15 days of the date of the hearing. We further order the parties to file a joint status update in 60 days of the date o f this order and every 30 days thereafter. This appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and
removed from the Court’s active docket. The appeal will remain abated until the2

supplemental records are filed. Any party may file a motion to reinstate th e app eal at any time, or the Court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. Any party may file a motion

to continue abatement.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: __ December 17, 2019

__