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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                       3,449,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,216,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   117,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,352,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,297,000
<PP&E>                                      40,982,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,834,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,180,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,181,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 16,885,000
<COMMON>                                     8,228,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,180,000
<SALES>                                     35,577,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,577,000
<CGS>                                        8,350,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,466,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                55,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,220,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   915,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,305,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,305,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28


</TABLE>
254 La. 3

#### SUCCESSION of William Hutchinson ROBINSON.

No. 49715.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 9, 1969.

In re: Mrs. Mary Belle Flournoy Robinson applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 218 So.2d 383.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error in the judgment complained of.
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofVillageEDOCS (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period endedSeptember 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

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

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

| Date:  November 14,  2002                                                        | /s/ Michael A. Richard                       |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|           ------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------   |
|                                                                                       | Controller and Principal  Accounting Officer |
# C&T aims to improve communication through ‘War Games’ exercise

/ Published April 9, 2018
PHILADELPHIA, 
Since its inception nearly three years ago, Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Clothing and Textiles’ culture improvement team has worked to enhance communication throughout the supply chain.

Streamlining communication between management, supervisors and team members was consistently identified as an area for improvement in previous culture climate survey results.

One of the CIT’s most significant undertakings was completing its first War Games simulation of an emergency scenario in November 2017, CIT leader and material planner Mark Stone said.

“For our first one, [the War Games exercise] was a success and showed how we all work together under a stressful and short timeframe,” Stone said.

During the exercise every C&T employee was tasked with responding to a hurricane that resulted in the destruction of stock at a third-party logistics provider. Employees completed tasks, including confirming which items were stored at the affected site and rerouting stock on its way to the 3PL within five hours.

The CIT developed the scenario with senior management and used an integrated team meeting process to virtually track processes, list milestones and keep employees accountable for their tasks within the scope of the exercise, C&T Deputy Director Roy Dillard said. 

Because of the timeliness of the exercise, employees were also encouraged to speak face-to-face versus sending emails, CIT member and product specialist Tanya Lawrence said.

“Every day culture has taught us to interact through technology as opposed to the ‘old fashioned’ way of face-to-face,” Lawrence said.

C&T plans to conduct war games exercises quarterly and will follow a “crawl, walk, run” military-style increasing level of difficulty throughout the year, Dillard said. 

“In the future, we will be able to build creative scenarios to further enhance C&T’s organizational culture,” Dillard said. “Running war game exercises will allow the workforce to physically participate, promote more communication and engage talents, new and seasoned, to strengthen and improve the culture dynamics.”

*The 2018 DLA culture climate survey is open until April 17. Employees are encouraged to provide their feedback about working at DLA by completing the survey.*
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1644 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1644

To promote the employment of workers displaced by Hurricane Katrina in 
       connection with Hurricane Katrina reconstruction efforts.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 8, 2005

  Mrs. Boxer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To promote the employment of workers displaced by Hurricane Katrina in 
       connection with Hurricane Katrina reconstruction efforts.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hurricane Katrina Reconstruction and 
Displaced Worker Assistance Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL CONTRACTING REQUIREMENT.

    In entering into a contract to procure services in connection with 
Hurricane Katrina reconstruction efforts, the head of an executive 
agency shall give a preference in the source selection process to each 
offeror that employs workers who have been displaced by Hurricane 
Katrina as not less than 25 percent of the workforce that will perform 
such services.

SEC. 3. EXECUTIVE AGENCY DEFINED.

    In this Act, the term ``executive agency'' has the meaning given 
such term in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
(41 U.S.C. 403).
                                 <all>
```
#### POLAR ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida Corporation and Luis Bertot, Individually, Appellants, v. Jerome M. SREDNICKI, d/b/a Clock & DeCloux, Appellee.

No. 77-1443.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 17, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1978.

Laurence D. Faye, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Rash & Katzen, South Miami, for appel-lee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this case, the court had once set aside a default that permitted delinquent defendants to plead. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought an amendment to his complaint. In permitting the amendment because of prior confusion about pleadings, the trial judge directed (by court order) the defendants to file an answer by a day certain. This the defendants declined to do and, after the time for filing had expired, the plaintiff moved for a default based upon the defendants’ failure to comply with the court order. The judge entered the default. At no time did the defendants tender an answer to the amended complaint. Thereafter, final judgment was rendered on the default and this appeal ensued, contending that the trial court erred in the entry of the second default. We disagree, and affirm the action of the trial judge.

The order specifically required the filing of an answer and the court was justified in entering a default when the defendants failed to abide by the court order. *Jordan v. John Ryan Company,*35 Fla. 259, 17 So. 73 (1895); *Farish*v. *Lum’s, Inc.,*267 So.2d 325 (Fla.1972); cf. *Synthetic Environmental Development Corp. v. Sussman,*275 So.2d 291 (Fla.3d DCA 1973). The appellants contend they had a right to have their answers stand over, pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(a), and *Ortiz v. Nicolaides,*196 So.2d 186 (Fla.3d DCA 1967); *Rubenstein v. Richard Fidlin Corporation,*346 So.2d 89 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). This is generally true; however, in the instant case there was an order directing them to file an answer and it was for this failure to comply with the court order that the subsequent default was entered.

Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

To the Board of Directors
Northgate Innovations, Inc.

We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference in the  previously  filed
Registration  Statement  of  Northgate  Innovations,   Inc.  on  Form  S-8  (No.
333-36822) of our report,  dated March 26, 2004,  appearing in the Annual Report
on Form 10-K of  Northgate  Innovations,  Inc.  for the year ended  December 31,
2003.


                                /s/  Corbin & Company LLP

                                Irvine, California
                                March 29, 2004
# L_2023171DE.01004501.xml

| 6.7.2023 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 171/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.7.2023

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 171/45

---

Berichtigung der Regelung Nr. 107 der Wirtschaftskommission für Europa der Vereinten Nationen (UNECE) — Einheitliche Bestimmungen für die Genehmigung von Fahrzeugen der Klassen M2 oder M3 hinsichtlich ihrer allgemeinen Konstruktionsmerkmale [2018/237]

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 52 vom 23. Februar 2018
  )

Seite 53, Anhang 3 Nummer 7.7.1.8.4 Buchstabe b:

Anstatt:

| „b) | über eine senkrechte Ebene hinausragt, die 300 mm über dem Mittelpunkt der Sitzfläche des Fahrersitzes in der hintersten und niedrigsten Stellung verläuft.“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

über eine senkrechte Ebene hinausragt, die 300 mm über dem Mittelpunkt der Sitzfläche des Fahrersitzes in der hintersten und niedrigsten Stellung verläuft.“

muss es heißen:

| „b) | über eine horizontale Ebene hinausragt, die 300 mm über dem Mittelpunkt der Sitzfläche des Fahrersitzes in der hintersten und niedrigsten Stellung verläuft.“ |
| --- | --- |

„b)

über eine horizontale Ebene hinausragt, die 300 mm über dem Mittelpunkt der Sitzfläche des Fahrersitzes in der hintersten und niedrigsten Stellung verläuft.“

---
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2016-3692 Directorate Identifier: 2016-NE-05-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 60.0 $5,100.0

0

$5,100.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
EXHIBIT 12.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

     I, Lewis J. Lee, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Progen Industries
Limited;

     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 company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

     4.     The company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company 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
          company, 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 company'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 company's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
          covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control
          over financial reporting; and

     5.     The company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of
directors:

          (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 company's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and


<PAGE>
          (b)      Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
          or other employees who have a significant role in the company's
          internal control over financial reporting.

Date: December 16, 2004
      -----------------
                                                /s/ Lewis J. Lee
                                             -------------------
                                             Managing Director


<PAGE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60540

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BOBBY H. RUSSELL,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:94-CV-168

- - - - - - - - - -

March 1, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Bobby Russell appeals the district court's order denying his

"Petition to Modify Sentence Pursuant to Rule § 2255." Russell's

"petition," which seeks a reduction of his sentence, does not

provide the basis for a valid collateral attack pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2255. Russell's challenge to the propriety of his fine

was not raised on direct appeal. Accordingly, this claim is not

addressed. 

The appeal is without arguable merit and thus frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). We caution

Russell that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will
No. 95-60540

-2-

invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Russell

is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that

they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have

been previously decided by this court. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. Rule 42.2.
How far back do the reports and data sets go?

 

 

Back to FAQs
 

 

USDA Economicsand Statistics SystemAlbert R. Mann Library, Cornell UniversityComments and questions to [email protected]
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 04-0607

IN RE  THE JOHN G. & MARIE STELLA KENEDY MEMORIAL FOUNDATION

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relator’s motion for emergency temporary relief, filed July 7, 2004, is granted.   The order dated January 29, 2004, in Cause No. 395, styled *In Re  Estate of John G. Kenedy, Jr. et al.*, and the order dated June 18, 2004, in Cause No. 395, 395A, 395B, 395C, styled *In The Estates of John G. Kenedy, Jr., Elena Suess Kenedy, and Sarita Kenedy East, Deceased,* in the Kenedy County Probate Court of Kenedy County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this July 08, 2004.

Andrew Weber, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Nancy J. Vega, Chief Deputy Clerk
```

[115th Congress Public Law 153]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 1237]]

Public Law 115-153
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 100 Mathe Avenue in Interlachen, Florida, as the ``Robert H. Jenkins, 
       Jr. Post Office''. <<NOTE: Mar. 23, 2018 -  [H.R. 3893]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ROBERT H. JENKINS, JR. POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 Mathe Avenue in Interlachen, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Robert H. Jenkins, Jr. Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert H. 
Jenkins, Jr. Post Office''.

    Approved March 23, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3893:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 163 (2017):
                                    Nov. 15, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 164 (2018):
                                    Mar. 7, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Henry A. REID, Jr.

No. 61430.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana through the Attorney General, William J. Guste,- Jr., applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition and stay order. Parish of Calcasieu.

Denied.
**Crop Progress (PCR-BB)
A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture**Description:**
**
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           Section 1350 Certification

         In connection  with the annual report of PHAZAR CORP (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial  Officer of the Company certify,  pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

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

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



   /s/ Gary W. Havener
   -----------------------------
   Gary W. Havener
   Chief Executive Officer


   /s/ Clark D. Wraight
   -----------------------------
   Clark D. Wraight
   Chief Financial Officer



























                                Exhibit 32.1 - 1