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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ISOMET CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR 
THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY 
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,730
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,833
<PP&E>                                           2,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,738
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,906
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,681
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,201
<SALES>                                          5,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,804
<CGS>                                            3,733
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,187
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 152
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    617
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (68)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                685
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       682
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JAMES P. DEFAZIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 HOLLISTER, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

NOS. CIV. 2:04-1358 WBS GGH

 2:05-0559 WBS GGH

 2:05-1726 WBS GGH

 CONSOLIDATED

ORDER

----oo0oo----

On October 19, 2009, the court held a pre-trial

conference in this case and discussed the possibility that the

Ninth Circuit might summarily dispose of plaintiffs’ appeals

within the thirty days following the pre-trial conference. On

November 20, 2009, the parties informed the court that the

plaintiffs’ appeals are still pending. 

For the reasons stated at the pre-trial conference, the

trial date of January 12, 2010, is hereby vacated and will be

reset after the Ninth Circuit disposes of plaintiffs’ appeals. 

Within ten days of the Ninth Circuit’s decision on plaintiffs’

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 589 Filed 11/24/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

appeals, the parties shall file a joint statement informing the

court of the resolution of the appeals, identifying any issues

raised by the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on plaintiffs’ appeals, and

suggesting new trial dates. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 23, 2009

 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 589 Filed 11/24/09 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
**Exhibit 13.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
     In connection with this amendment to the Annual Report of KLM Royal DutchAirlines (the “Company”) on Form 20-F/A for the periodended March 31, 2003 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Leo M. van Wijk, the President and Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, that tomy knowledge:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of the operations ofthe Company.
Dated January 9, 2004   /s/ LEO M. VAN WIJK**L.M. van Wijk**  **President and Chief Executive Officer**     
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C§1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.
32
No. 52000.

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

protests 51055-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7609

In Re: MARCUS DUKE SHELTON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis.

Submitted: December 15, 2000 Decided: January 8, 2001

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Duke Shelton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Duke Shelton petitions this court for a writ of error

coram nobis, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (1994), seeking to invalidate his

1988 Virginia conviction for petty larceny. To the extent that

Shelton seeks review of a Virginia trial court’s denial of his

state petition for a writ of error coram nobis, we do not possess

jurisdiction to review that court’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. §§

1291-1296 (1994). Furthermore, this court has no jurisdiction

under § 1651(a) to alter the judgment of a Virginia trial court.

See Sinclair v. Louisiana, 679 F.2d 513, 514-15 (5th Cir. 1982).

Accordingly, we deny Shelton’s petition. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
No. 49611.

#### Protests 72756-K, etc., of Frank B. Ham & Co., Ltd., et al. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Richardson*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 6, C. D. 823). In accordance therewith the claim at 5 percent under paragraph 731, as modified, "was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARNELL LEE FLEMMINGS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S 04-1384 FCD PAN P 

vs.

GEORGE STRTTON, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has timely filed a notice of appeal of

this court's June 13, 2005, denial of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Before petitioner

can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R.

App. P. 22(b).

A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2). The court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues

satisfy the required showing or must state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 

Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01384-FCD-PAN Document 15 Filed 07/08/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

For the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s April 27, 2005, findings and

recommendations, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right. Petitioner patently failed to exhaust the available state court remedies. Accordingly, a

certificate of appealability should not issue in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:July 8, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01384-FCD-PAN Document 15 Filed 07/08/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 46709.

#### Protests 15832-K, etc., of Dr. Julius Schuelein (New York).

*419Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the brewers’ yeast in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 45733 it was held entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669 as claimed.
No. 66832.

#### Norman G. Jensen, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/4880, 60/4881, and 60/7517 (Duluth).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of deeharacterized horsemeat, fresh, chilled, or frozen, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66254, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN WILLIAM WALLACE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0774 MCE JFM PS

vs.

U.S. GOVERNMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 11, 2005, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Report and Complaint,”

and on February 10, 2006, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Notice.” This action was closed

on August 30, 2004. Plaintiff is advised that documents filed by plaintiff since the closing date

will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. 

DATED: April 24, 2006.

/001; wallace.58

Case 2:04-cv-00774-MCE -JFM Document 16 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 1
(Reap. Dec. 10074)

#### Berg Hedstrom & Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 13037, etc.

(Decided August 31, 1961)

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

*William, H. Orrick, Jr.,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LawRence, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of certain household cooking utensils forms the subject of the appeals for a reappraisement enumerated in the schedule, attached to and made a part of this decision.

The parties hereto have stipulated and agreed to the following facts:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule “A” hereto annexed and made a part hereof, are limited to the items marked “A” and initialed AM (Examiner’s Initials) by Examiner Alois Munch (Examiner’s Name) and are abandoned in all other respects.

> IT IS EURTHED STIPULATED AND AGREED that as so limited the merchandise and the issues are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues involved in *Indussa Corp.*v. *United States,*C.A.D. 736 and that the record in said ease may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS EURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade were the appraised unit values plus 61%% less 40% plus 10% sales tax plus packing as invoiced.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, is the proper basis of value for the household cooking utensils, identified on the invoices accompanying the entries covered by the instant appeals with the letter “A” and initialed “AM” by Examiner Alois Munch, and that said value is the appraised unit values, plus 51 *y2*per centum, less 40 per centum, plus 10 per centum sales tax, plus packing, as invoiced. As to any other merchandise, the appeals are dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nexicon, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Date:     February 10, 2006              NEXICON, INC.

                                         By:  /s/ Daniel Urrea
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Daniel Urrea
                                              Chief Financial Officer and
                                              Principal Accounting Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Nexicon, Inc. and will
be retained by Nexicon, Inc. and furnished to the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4234 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to classify certain automatic 

fire sprinkler system retrofits as 15-year property for purposes of depreciation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Mr. BENNET (for himself and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to classify 

certain automatic fire sprinkler system retrofits as 15- 

year property for purposes of depreciation. 

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 ‘‘High Rise Fire Sprin5 kler Incentive Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN AUTOMATIC FIRE 

7 SPRINKLER SYSTEM RETROFITS. 

8 (a) TREATMENT AS 15-YEAR PROPERTY.—Section 

9 168(e)(3)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (vi), by 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4234 IS

1 striking the period at the end of clause (vii) and inserting 

2 ‘‘, and’’, and by adding at the end the following: 

3 ‘‘(viii) any automatic fire sprinkler 

4 system retrofit property.’’. 

5 (b) APPLICABLE DEPRECIATION METHOD.—Section 

6 168(b)(3) of such Code is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(H) Any automatic fire sprinkler system 

9 retrofit property.’’. 

10 (c) ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM.—The table contained in 

11 section 168(g)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by inserting 

12 after the item relating to subparagraph (E)(vii) the fol13 lowing: 

(E)(viii) ........................................................................................... 39 

14 (d) DEFINITION OF AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER

15 SYSTEM RETROFIT PROPERTY.—Section 168(i) of such 

16 Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 

17 paragraph: 

18 ‘‘(20) AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM

19 RETROFIT PROPERTY.—The term ‘automatic fire 

20 sprinkler system retrofit property’ means any sprin21 kler system which— 

22 ‘‘(A) meets the standards of National Fire 

23 Protection Association 13 (or any successor 

24 benchmark), 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4234 IS

1 ‘‘(B) is installed for use in residential 

2 property, and 

3 ‘‘(C) is installed in a building which— 

4 ‘‘(i) was placed in service before the 

5 date of such installation, and 

6 ‘‘(ii) has an occupiable floor more 

7 than 75 feet above the lowest level of fire 

8 department vehicle access.’’. 

9 (e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply after the date of enactment of this 

11 Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT 23

Independent Auditors' Consent



The
Board of Directors
International Multifoods Corporation:

We
consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-51399 on Form S-8 relating to the Employees' Voluntary Investment and
Savings Plan of International Multifoods Corporation, No. 333-34173 on Form S-8 relating to the Stock Purchase Plan of Robin Hood Multifoods Inc., No
2-84236 on Form S-8 relating to the 1983 Stock Option Incentive Plan of International Multifoods Corporation, No. 33-6223 on
Form S-8 relating to the 1986 Stock Option Incentive Plan of International Multifoods Corporation, No. 33-30979 on Form S-8 relating to the
Amended and Restated 1989 Stock-Based Incentive Plan of International Multifoods Corporation, No. 333-34171 on Form S-8, No. 333-69387 on
Form S-8 and No. 333-86302 on Form S-8 relating to the 1997 Stock-Based Incentive Plan of International Multifoods Corporation,
No.333-64075 on Form S-8 relating to the Consulting Agreement between International Multifoods Corporation and Daryl Schaller and No. 33-65221 on
Form S-3 relating to certain debt securities of International Multifoods Corporation of our reports dated April 8, 2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
International Multifoods Corporation and subsidiaries as of March 2, 2002 and March 3, 2001 and the related consolidated statements of earnings, cash flows, and shareholders' equity, and
related financial statement schedule for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended March 2, 2002, which reports appear or are incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 2, 2002, of International Multifoods Corporation.



/s/    KPMG
Minneapolis, Minnesota
May 20, 2002

---

QuickLinks
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4490 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to increase the 

funds available to Governors for statewide youth workforce investment 

activities, and statewide adult and dislocated worker employment and 

training activities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

Mr. CASSIDY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

to increase the funds available to Governors for statewide 

youth workforce investment activities, and statewide 

adult and dislocated worker employment and training 

activities. 

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 ‘‘Workforce Advance5 ment and Engagement Act’’ or ‘‘WAE Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4490 IS

1 SEC. 2. GOVERNOR’S RESERVE FUNDS. 

2 Section 128(a)(1) of the Workforce Innovation and 

3 Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3163(a)(1)) is amended— 

4 (1) by striking ‘‘The Governor’’ and inserting 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘(A) GOVERNOR’S RESERVE FUNDS.—The 

7 Governor’’; 

8 (2) by striking ‘‘15 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘25 

9 percent’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(B) PORTION FOR EMPLOYER-BASED

12 TRAINING.—Except as otherwise provided in 

13 sections 116(f)(1)(B) and 129(a)(4)(A), if a 

14 sum reserved under subparagraph (A) from an 

15 allotted amount exceeds 15 percent of that al16 lotted amount, the portion that exceeds 15 per17 cent shall be used only for statewide employer18 based training activities, notwithstanding sec19 tions 106(b)(7), 129(b), and 134(a). 

20 ‘‘(C) EMPLOYER-BASED TRAINING ACTIVI21 TIES.—In this paragraph, the term ‘employer22 based training activities’ includes on-the-job 

23 training, customized training, or other em24 ployer-provided training activities.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK RONALD HOLLEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1425 GEB PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner without counsel, has filed

this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No.

262.

On June 21, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings

and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and

which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. 

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 50 Filed 07/25/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Plaintiff and defendants have filed objections to the findings

and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-304, this court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 21,

2005, are adopted in full.

2. Defendants’ January 14, 2005, motion to dismiss is

granted in part.

3. All claims against defendant Herrera, except that

of retaliation against plaintiff for exercise of First Amendment

rights, are dismissed for failure to state a claim.

4. Claims against defendants Providence, O’Ran,

Mirich, Jako, Veal, Allen and Grannis are dismissed for failure

to exhaust administrative remedies.

5. Defendant Herrera is required to answer the

complaint within thirty days of disposition of the motion to

dismiss.

Dated: July 22, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01425-GEB-EFB Document 50 Filed 07/25/05 Page 2 of 2