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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule for Form 10-Q for January 31, 2000
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000102198
<NAME> COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                         124,663
<SECURITIES>                                 5,735,475
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,202,184
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,159,937
<PP&E>                                         294,091
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,635,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,968,065
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     60,675
<COMMON>                                        60,663
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,546,114
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,635,517
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,716,896
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,657,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                287,659
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            287,659
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   287,659
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > New Housing and Its Materials, 1940-56

              																	Murphy, Kathryn Robertson. 						*New Housing and Its Materials, 1940-56 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1231*,												Washington: 								U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of labor statistics, 										August 1958,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4503,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 308 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers’ 

Memorial Service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2008 

Ms. NORTON (for herself, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. HOYER, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. VAN

HOLLEN, Mr. WYNN, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, and Mr. WOLF) submitted the following concurrent resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National 

Peace Officers’ Memorial Service. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL 

4 PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Grand Lodge of the Fra6 ternal Order of Police and its auxiliary (in this resolution 

7 referred to as the ‘‘sponsor’’) shall be permitted to sponsor 

8 a public event, the 27th annual National Peace Officers’ 

9 Memorial Service (in this resolution referred to as the 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 308 IH 

1 ‘‘event’’), on the Capitol Grounds, in order to honor the 

2 law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty dur3 ing 2007. 

4 (b) DATE OF EVENT.—The event shall be held on 

5 May 15, 2008, or on such other date as the Speaker of 

6 the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules 

7 and Administration of the Senate jointly designate. 

8 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Under conditions to be prescribed 

10 by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police 

11 Board, the event shall be— 

12 (1) free of admission charge and open to the 

13 public; and 

14 (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of 

15 Congress. 

16 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The sponsor shall 

17 assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities 

18 incident to all activities associated with the event. 

19 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS. 

20 Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Cap21 itol, the sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol 

22 Grounds such stage, sound amplification devices, and 

23 other related structures and equipment, as may be re24 quired for the event. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
3 

•HCON 308 IH 

1 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS. 

2 The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforce3 ment of the restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of 

4 title 40, United States Code, concerning sales, advertise5 ments, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, 

6 as well as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol 

7 Grounds, in connection with the event. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00314- CV

In re G erald Anthony Wright

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Ger ald Anthony Wright has petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus direc ting the board of pardons and parole s to r elea se him to mandatory supervision. The Court is authorized to issue all writs of mandamus ag ainst a judge of a district or county court in its district, but the Court’s mandamus authority is otherwise limit ed t o t h e en forcement of its jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004). Wright’s claim ag ainst the parole board does not implicate the Court’s jurisdiction. The petition for writ of ma ndamus is denied.

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Waldrop Filed: June 24, 2010
EXHIBIT 13.2



Certification of 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 Desert Sun Mining Corporation, a company organized under the Canada Business Corporations Act (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Stephen Woodhead, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 respects, the financial condition and result of operations

of the Company.



/s/ Stephen Woodhead_____________________

Stephen Woodhead, Chief Financial Officer





Date: March 12, 2004
No. 42053.

#### Protest 839734-G/86321 of J. J. Glenn & Co. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

A sample was analyzed and found to be composed of 52 percent cotton braid and 48 percent impregnating material (oil-resin varnish) and another sample was reported to be composed of about 36 percent cotton braid and 64 percent oil-resin varnish coating. There was no further evidence, and as the chemist’s report alone failed to show the component material of chief value in the articles the protest was overruled.
Exhibit 32

Certificate Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of the PBSJ Corporation (the Company) hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                          |  |                                                  
|------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: September 21, 2007 |  | /s/ John B. Zumwalt III                          
|                          |  | John B. Zumwalt III                              
|                          |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|                          | 
|Dated: September 21, 2007 |  | /s/ Donald J. Vrana                              
|                          |  | Donald J. Vrana                                  
|                          |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Gary RIDINGS, Defendant-Appellant, v. Rita LaCHANCE, Plaintiff-Respondent.

No. 72957.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 6, 1998.

Gregory G. Fenlon, Godfrey & Fenlon, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

Before PUDLOWSKI, P.J., and CRANDALL and AHRENS, JJ.

*46ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Gary Ridings (“Ridings”) appeals from a $8,000 judgment in favor of plaintiff Rita LaChance (“LaChance”) in a court-tried action for breach of contract. On appeal, Ridings argues: (1) the trial court had no jurisdiction to set aside the judgment entered in a trial de novo following a small claims court case, (2) the trial court erred in entering judgment for LaChance because there was undisputed evidence that the terms of the agreement were not violated, and (3) the trial court erred in calculating the amount, of damages LaChance could recover.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsReal-Time Monitoring and Prediction of Airspace SafetyThe U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) has reached an extremely high level of safety in recent years. However, it will only become more difficult to maintain the current level of safety with the forecasted increase in operations, and so the FAA has been making revolutionary changes to the NAS to both expand capacity and ensure safety. Our work complements these efforts by developing a novel model-based framework for real-time monitoring and prediction of the safety of the NAS. Our framework is divided into two parts: (offline) safety analysis and modeling part, and a real-time (online) monitoring and prediction of safety. The goal of the safety analysis task is to identify hazards to flight (distilled from several national databases) and to codify these hazards within our framework such that we can monitor and predict them. From these we define safety metrics that can be monitored and predicted using dynamic models of airspace operations, aircraft, and weather, along with a rigorous, mathematical treatment of uncertainty. We demonstrate our overall approach and highlight the advantages of this approach over the current state-of-the-art through simulated scenarios.Document ID20180006637Acquisition SourceAmes Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsRoychoudhury, Indranil*(SGT, Inc. Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Spirkovska, Lilly*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Daigle, MatthewBalaban, Edward*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Sankararaman, Shankar*(SGT, Inc. Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Kulkarni, Chetan*(SGT, Inc. Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Poll, Scott*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Goebel, Kai*(GE Global Research Center Niskayuna, NY, United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 24, 2018Publication DateDecember 1, 2018Subject CategoryStatistics And ProbabilityAir Transportation And SafetyReport/Patent NumberARC-E-DAA-TN28054NASA/TM-2015-218928Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNA14AA60CWBS: WBS 999182.02.60.01.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Keywordssafety metricsprognosisNational Airspace SystemAvailable DownloadsNameType20180006637.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Jessie SUMMERALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 98-2655.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 5, 1999.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marrett W. Hanna, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his conviction for armed burglary, contending that the state’s evidence was insufficient to prove that he was armed during the commission *450of the burglary. In this circumstantial evidence case, the state concedes, and we agree, that under this court’s decision in *Dupree v. State,*705 So.2d 90, 93-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the evidence was not inconsistent with appellant’s reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Appellant argued that he was not armed during the burglary, and we cannot find any evidence even indicating the presence of a firearm during the commission of the crime. However, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that appellant had committed the burglary. Therefore, we reverse the conviction and sentence for burglary with • a firearm and remand for resentencing for burglary. We affirm the conviction and sentence for possession of burglary tools.

GUNTHER, WARNER and STEVENSON, JJ„ concur.
Bepore the Third Division,

June 12, 1961

No. 65787.

#### Lekas & Drivas, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 59/19883 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the 262 wooden cases were American goods returned and that the collector is satisfied as to the existence of all facts upon which entry of the merchandise free of duty is dependent, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. Abstract 57104 followed.
No. 96-7860.

#### Riddick *v.*Virginia.

Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin T. ROMEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-1264.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 11, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 11, 2005.

John G. McKenzie, Office of the United States Attorney, Rockford, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard H. Parsons, Jonathan E. Hawley, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before EASTERBROOK, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

ORDER

Kevin Romez was arrested while carrying a gun and transporting over three kilograms of marijuana in his girlfriend’s car. He was indicted for possession with intent to distribute the marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and possession of a firearm by a felon, *id.*§ 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty to all three counts after entering into a written plea agreement that includes a waiver of his right to appeal his convictions or sentences in return for concessions by the government.

Appealing nonetheless, Romez maintains that the sentencing court erred by applying the formerly mandatory guidelines regime, *see United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and contends that a limited remand under *United States v. Paladino,*401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.2005), is necessary. For its part the government asserts that this appeal should be dismissed without reaching the *Booker*issue, and we agree. Romez’s plea agreement included no “escape hatch” to permit him an appeal should the guidelines be invalidated, and the law implies none, *Booker*notwithstanding. *See United*
      *709
      *States v. Bownes,*405 F.3d 634, 636—37 (7th Cir.2005); *see also United States v. Lockwood,*416 F.3d 604, 606 (7th Cir.2005); *United States v. Roche,*415 F.3d 614, 615 (7th Cir.2005); *United States v. Cieslowski,*410 F.3d 353, 362 (7th Cir.2005). Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED.
(Reap. Dec. 9459)

#### Western Auto Supply Company *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 2976; 3271.

(Decided June 15, 1959)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

*George Gochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge;

These two appeals for reappraisement relate to certain so-called juvenile bicycles exported from Germany and entered at the port of Baltimore, Md.

Stipulated facts, upon which the cases have been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value therefor is the appraised value, less the charges as invoiced for inland freight and delivery f.o.b. charges, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9110]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[TA-W-61,362]


Employment and Training Administration: Bayer Clothing Group 
Inc., Target Sales Corp., Naperville, IL; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 23, 2007 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Bayer Clothing 
Group Inc., Target Sales Corp., Naperville, Illinois.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active amended 
certification (TA-W-59,299B) which expires on May 31, 2008. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of May, 2007
Linda G. Poole
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-9110 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1164 KA 14-00821
PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSHUA A. GANG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOSEPH V. CARDONE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ALBION (KATHERINE BOGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), rendered July 8, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the 18-month preindictment delay did not deprive him of due process ( see generally People v Singer , 44 NY2d 241, 253-254). It is well established that “a determination made in good faith to defer commencement of the prosecution for further investigation[,] or for other sufficient reasons, will not deprive the defendant of due process of law even though the delay may cause some prejudice to the defense” ( Singer , 44 NY2d at 254). Here, the “investigative delays were satisfactorily explained and were permissible exercises of prosecutorial discretion” ( People v Nazario , 85 AD3d 577, 577, lv denied 17 NY3d 904). Upon our review of the factors set forth in People v Taranovich (37 NY2d 442, 445), we conclude that the delay did not deprive defendant of his right to due process ( see People v Johnson , 134 AD3d 1388, 1389-1390, affd ___ NY3d ___ [Nov. 17, 2016]).

With respect to defendant’s remaining contentions, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, we agree with defendant that the waiver does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because “ ‘no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction’ that he was also waiving his right to appeal any issue concerning the severity of the sentence” ( People v Lorenz , 119 AD3d-2- 1164 KA 14-00821

1450, 1450, lv denied 24 NY3d 962; see People v Maracle , 19 NY3d 925, 928). Nevertheless, we reject defendant’s contention that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe.

Entered: December 23, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court