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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            6485
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    36658
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      41993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 88259
<PP&E>                                           99564
<DEPRECIATION>                                   53600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  145041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            22120
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          8550
<OTHER-SE>                                      109690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    145041
<SALES>                                         224026
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                224026
<CGS>                                           161272
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   213881
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (83)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   548
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10228
<INCOME-TAX>                                      4290
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5938
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5938
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 60811.

#### Camera Specialty Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 278334-K.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
# sec5_balsht_2018

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2017-16	&"Arial,Bold"&10V BS - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BDecember 2017
No. 63055.

#### A. N. Deringer, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 248257-K, 248258-K, and 255996-K (Ogdensburg).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fresh or frozen boneless pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 59714, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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 the Quarterly Report of Click2learn, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Kevin M. Oakes, Chief Executive Officer and I, John D. Atherly, Chief Financial Officer, of Click2learn, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Click2learn, Inc.



Dated:  February
10, 2004



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    KEVIN M.
OAKES  
|Kevin M. Oakes         
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|/s/    JOHN D.
ATHERLY 
|John D. Atherly        
|Chief Financial Officer
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 8/4/2023 1

Onerous Absentee-Ballot Procedures 

in Mississippi 

O’Neil v. Hosemann 

(Daniel P. Jordan III, S.D. Miss. 3:18-cv-815) 

On the day before a runoff election, plaintiffs sought a federal-court 

injunction requiring the counting of absentee ballots postmarked by 

election day instead of received by the day before election day. The 

federal judge decided that the request for relief was too late and the 

relief requested was too disruptive. 

Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: Absentee ballots; 

laches. 

Three voters and an organization promoting voting rights filed a federal complaint in the Southern District of Mississippi on Monday, November 21, 2018, 

six days before a runoff election, against state election officials and election 

officials of two counties, challenging Mississippi’s procedures for absentee 

voting as unusually onerous.1

 Five days later, on the day before election day, 

the plaintiffs filed an “Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 

and Preliminary Injunction”2

 to require the counting of absentee ballots that 

are postmarked by election day instead of received as of the day before.3

Judge Daniel P. Jordan III heard the case on election day, completing the 

hearing late in the morning.4

 That day, he issued an opinion denying immediate relief.5

 “There are two related problems with Plaintiffs’ requested relief—it 

is too late and disturbs the status quo.”6 Changing the deadline for absentee 

ballots after the deadline had passed and on the day for postmarked ballots if 

the deadline were to change “would mean that different voters would be operating under different laws.”7

Moreover, Judge Jordan questioned “whether Plaintiffs named the correct 

defendants. . . . [U]nder Mississippi’s election [statutes], the registrars, i.e., circuit clerks, for each county are given the relevant tasks.”8

He noted, however, that the Mississippi timeline for requesting and casting 

absentee ballots “is tight—if not impossible—for some voters.”9

Judge Jordan dismissed the case as settled in 2020.10

1. Complaint, O’Neil v. Hosemann, No. 3:18-cv-815 (S.D. Miss. Nov. 21, 2018), D.E. 1; see

Amended Complaint, id. (Dec. 20, 2018), D.E. 26. 

2. Motion, id. (Nov. 26, 2018), D.E. 3. 

3. Brief at 6, id. (Nov. 26, 2018), D.E. 4. 

4. Docket Sheet, id. (Nov. 21, 2018); Opinion at 6, id. (Nov. 27, 2018), D.E. 19, 2018 WL 

6188292. 

5. Opinion, supra note 4. 

6. Id. at 4. 

7. Id. at 6. 

8. Id. at 3. 

9. Id. at 2. 

10. Order, O’Neil v. Hosemann, No. 3:18-cv-815 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 30, 2020), D.E. 60.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

View a User Defined Field

To view a user defined field (UDF), complete the following steps: 

1. From the Administration tab, click Manage Organizations>User Defined Fields >View. 

The Select OTC Endpoint screen appears.

2. Select the highest-level organization for which you would like to view UDF. A View User 

Defined Field page appears.

3. Click on any of the UDFs to view its characteristics (e.g., Activity Type, Label, 

Description, etc.). The characteristics appear as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. View User Defined Field
Order filed November 23, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00410-CV

KOFFI JUSTIN NGORAN, Appellant

V.

FLAN ROSELINE SEI MESSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2020-28888

ORDER

Appellant Koffi Justin Ngoran appeals the trial court’s final decree of 

divorce nunc pro tunc1 dissolving his marriage to appellee Flan Roseline Sei 

Messon. The trial court’s final decree was signed pursuant to a mediated settlement 

1 The trial court signed its final decree of divorce on May 5, 2021 and its final decree of 

divorce nunc pro tunc on June 2, 2021. Both decrees include the following language: “This 

judgment finally disposes of all claims and all parties and is appealable.” See Lehmann v. 

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 206 (Tex. 2001). We note that the second decree was signed

within the trial court’s plenary power.
2

agreement filed with the trial court that was signed by the parties and their 

attorneys, and included language prominently stating that the agreement was not 

subject to revocation. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 6.602(b), 153.0071(d), (e).

Ngoran raises two issues. In issue 1, Ngoran argues the trial court’s decree is 

erroneous because the “language for the sale of the marital residence is

ambiguous” and “the Trial Court reversibly erred by dividing the marital residence 

in a manner inconsistent with the mediated settlement agreement.” Ngoran’s 

issue 1, however, does not identify any language he contends is ambiguous, nor 

does Ngoran specify the language or provision in the trial court’s final decree that 

is inconsistent with the parties’ mediated settlement agreement. We hold that issue 

1 is inadequately briefed. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i) (“The [appellant’s] brief must 

contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate 

citations to authorities and to the record.”).

In issue 2, Ngoran contends the “Trial Court signed a decree that contains 

provisions and awards that are nowhere in the [mediated settlement agreement]”

and “the terms and provisions in the ‘Marital Home’ section of the Final Decree of 

Divorce Nunc Pro Tun[c] are not contained in the [mediated settlement 

agreement].” The trial court’s decree, however, contains no section by that name. 

Even if it did, Ngoran again does not identify any specific “provisions and awards”

or “terms and provisions” that are contained in the trial court’s decree but not the 

parties’ mediated settlement agreement. We hold issue 2 is inadequately briefed. 

Id.
3

Ngoran is notified that post-submission consideration of the case has been 

postponed, and unless an amended brief that complies with Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 38.1(i) is filed with the clerk of this court on or before 

December 8, 2022, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 38.1(i), 38.9(b), 42.3(b). Ngoran is further notified that an amended 

brief cannot add new issues, but is limited to adequately briefing the two issues 

raised in the appellant’s brief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson.
```

                           NOTE PAYABLE

                           By and between
                International Mercantile Corporation
                              And
                     Red River Trading Company

This note payable is effective this 7th day of September, 1999, by and
between International Mercantile Corporation, a Missouri corporation
(the Buyer) and Red River Trading Company, Inc., a Maryland corporation
(the Seller).

Red River Trading Company has entered into a sales agreement with
International Mercantile Corporation for tangible personal property as
reflected in the attached bill of sale.  The total purchase price of
said property being $150,000.  Both parties agree to the following
payment terms:
        Annual Payment:   $25,000 plus accrued interest
        Interest Rate:    8.0% compounded annually
        Payment Dates:    January of each year, beginning January 2000.
        Term:             Six (6 ) years

All property is sold in as is condition.

For:     Red River Trading Company, Inc.  (Seller)

/s/Timothy Jewell                                       ----------
By:  Timothy Jewell, President                                Date

For:     International Mercantile Corporation (Buyer)

/s/Frederic Richardson                                  ---------
By:  Frederic Richardson, Chairman                      Date
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

CHARLETTE DUFRAY JOHNSON, a/k/a Charlotte Johnson,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, 

Senior District Judge. (7:10-cr-00093-BR-1)

Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 5, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charlette Dufray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Susan Beth Menzer, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charlette Dufray Johnson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying without prejudice Johnson’s pro se motions 

to vacate her sentence* and for a hearing on that motion. This 

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). 

“A judgment in a criminal case becomes final after 

conviction and imposition of sentence.” United States v. 

Hartwell, 448 F.3d 707, 712 (4th Cir. 2006). Although Johnson 

previously was convicted and twice sentenced, this court 

recently vacated her criminal judgment in part and remanded for 

resentencing. Because the resentencing hearing has not yet 

occurred, no final judgment has been entered in the district 

court. We conclude the order Johnson seeks to appeal is neither 

a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral 

order. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We deny as moot Johnson’s motion to expedite. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

 * This motion was not brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012).
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 2:04-cv-00665-GEB -KJM   Document 28    Filed 09/14/05   Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00665-GEB -KJM   Document 28    Filed 09/14/05   Page 2 of 2

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-27T23:56:55-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
No. 47323.

#### Protest 2264-K of Wm. J. Jones & Co. (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported and that no addition should have been made for planing, or tonguing and grooving. Protest sustained to this extent.
No. 54021.

#### Lewis & Locke, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 150619-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4177 — BASF/Degussa)

(2006/C 242/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 May 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
No. 62536.

#### J. G. Furniture Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 330529-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject *429of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 39, C. A. D. 669), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 52256.

protests 72576-K and 48552-K (Los Angeles).

#### T. Nishimi Co. v. United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that merchandise consists of dried and unsalted fish the same in all material respects as that passed upon in Abstract 50242, the claim at 1% cents per pound under paragraph 717 (e) was sustained.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 the Quarterly Report of Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc.
(the "Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Christopher R. Pook, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section G 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Christopher R. Pook

Christopher R. Pook
Chief Executive Officer
September 23, 2002

                                       28
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Interpoint Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 33-21987, 33-48200, 33-58441 and 33-39237) on Form S-8 of Interpoint
Corporation of our report dated November 9, 1993, with respect to the statements
of income, stockholders' equity and cash flows of Advanced Digital Information
Corporation for the year ended September 30, 1993, which report appears in the
October 31, 1995 annual report on Form 10-K of Interpoint Corporation.

/s/KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Seattle, Washington
January 26, 1996
Order entered August 22, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01162-CR

JOHANAN JOHN FOLSOM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-58786-P

ORDER

On July 11, 2013, this Court reversed appellant’s conviction and remanded the case to the 

trial court for further proceedings. On July 31, 2013, appellant filed a “Motion to Expedite 

Mandate.” There has been no response from the State to this motion. 

Appellant’s motion to expedite mandate is GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that the 

mandate in the above-styled case issue. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Personal communication with D. Bottcher, July 2010.

Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc.

Cost estimates for owner/typical agricultural control programs from SWET (2008a) are still 

applicable in 2010.
Services for:
The GeneralPublic

Services for:
GovernmentAgencies

Services for:
Business &Institutions

Not Sure?
Help Me Choose

Last modified 05/01/19
#### Charles E. TURNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.C. NEWLAND, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 99-56643.

D.C. No. CV-99-01339-JNK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Charles E. Turner appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review a district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo, *see Du-haime v. Ducharme,*200 F.3d 597, 600 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Turner raised several issues in the district court challenging the constitutionality of California’s Board of Prison Terms’ (“BPT”) authority, and their decision to deny his parole eligibility. The district court denied the petition and granted a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on the sole issue of Turner’s alleged “forced participation in Narcotics Anonymous program and the resulting violation of his due process rights by the BPT.”

On appeal, Turner raises the same claims. However under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3), his appeal is limited to issues for which a COA has been granted. Because this court has already denied Turner’s request for a broader COA, we decline to address any claims outside of the scope of the district court’s limited COA. *See Hiivala v. Wood,*195 F.3d 1098, 1102-OS (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam), *cert. denied,*529 U.S. 1009, 120 S.Ct. 1281, 146 L.Ed.2d 228 (2000).

*569Turning to the one claim for which the COA has been granted, we agree with the district court that Turner’s due process rights were not violated as the BPT’s decision to deny parole based on the callous nature of the offense, Turner’s unstable social history, drug abuse and escalating history of criminal conduct is sufficient to support the denial of parole. *See Morales v. California Dept. of Corrections,*16 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir.1994), *overruled on other grounds,*514 U.S. 499, 115 S.Ct. 1597, 131 L.Ed.2d 588 (1995) (affirming the denial of parole based on similar factors); *Jancsek v. Oregon Board of Parole,*833 F.2d 1389, 1390 (9th Cir.1987) (affirming denial of parole based on callous nature of the crime).

AFFIRMED.1

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. In deciding this appeal the panel considered issues raised in Appellant's reply brief filed on May 8, 2001. All outstanding motions are denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION

Suzanne Scanlon

:

 v.

:

No. 02-4448

:

Richard Huffnagle, et al 

:

NOTICE OF ARBITRATION HEARING

Please take note that the above-captioned civil action case has been scheduled for

ARBITRATION at 9:30 am on * Friday, January 17, 2003. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS

ARBITRATION HEARING WILL BE HELD IN THE ROBERT N.C. NIX BUILDING, 900

MARKET ST., PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107. REPORT TO ROOM 339 FOR YOUR ROOM

ASSIGNMENT. NOTE: Arbitrators shall not participate in settlement discussions.

Michael E. Kunz

Clerk of Court

* Case continued from 12/17/02

By: 

Tashia C. Irving

Deputy Clerk

Phone:267-299-7071

Date:December 16, 2002

Copies: Rita Dougherty, Courtroom Deputy to Judge John P. Fullam

Docket Clerk - Case File

Counsel: Leonard B. Edelstein, Esq.

Patrick J. Hasson, Esq.

Arbitrators: Joel Kalman, Esq. 

Margot Jones, Esq. 

Linda Berman, Esq. 

ARB2.FRM

Case 2:02-cv-04448-JF Document 6 Filed 12/16/2002 Page 1 of 1