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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1999
<CASH>                                           1,546
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,581
<INVENTORY>                                    138,418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               254,827
<PP&E>                                         288,060
<DEPRECIATION>                                  86,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 640,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          137,212
<BONDS>                                        453,923
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           535
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,924
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   640,808
<SALES>                                        751,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               751,785
<CGS>                                          396,112
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  680,494
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,264)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 7,024
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              45,051
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,632
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,604
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,028
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,028
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
        

</TABLE>
#### Clyde F. LEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-65.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 8, 1971.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; W. Rogers Turner, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### William L. GOREHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Thomas J. LAKEY, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 2510, 2511.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

July 31, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Doris Matheny GRAVES v. Johnny Mack GRAVES.

No. 50348.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 1, 1978.

Thomas J. Riley, Hattiesburg, for appellant.

Roberts & Easterling, S. Wayne Easter-ling, Hattiesburg, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and ROBERTSON and LEE, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
#### Frank James DENSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida Appellee.

No. 69-9.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 23, 1970.

*480Leonard L. Stafford, Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion to vacate filed pursuant to CrPR 1.850, 33 F.S.A.

The allegation that the prosecution knowingly used perjured testimony while legally sufficient as a ground for relief, Rayburn v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 212, is conclusively refuted by the transcript of the trial proceedings as contained in the record on appeal.

The allegation that court appointed counsel refused to call a star witness is legally insufficient to sustain a motion to vacate. Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 224.

 The allegation that appellant was deprived of a direct appeal through failure of court appointed counsel to file an appeal is not grounds for the relief sought under CrPR 1.850. Barnett v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So.2d 30; Coleman v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 96; Mobley v. State, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 90; Nelson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So.2d 506. If appellant’s right to direct appeal is shown to have been frustrated through a state functionary, he may obtain delayed appellate review by writ of habeas corpus in the district court of appeal. Powe v. State, Fla.1968, 216 So.2d 446; Hollingshead v. Wainwright, Fla.1967, 194 So.2d 577; State ex rel. Ervin v. Smith, Fla.1964, 160 So.2d 518; Jackson v. State, Fourth District Court of Appeal, 227 So.2d 354, opinion filed October 8, 1969.

The order denying appellant’s motion to vacate is affirmed, without prejudice to the right of appellant to seek delayed appellate review by writ of habeas corpus in this court upon sufficient showing of his entitlement to such.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: JASON JONES,

 

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00237-CR

Appeal from the

171st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 970D08935-171-1)

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was filed on December 6, 2022. Pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 31.1, the 

Court sets the following brief schedule: Appellant’s brief shall be due in this Court on or before 

January 5, 2023 and the State’s brief shall be due no later than thirty days after the Appellant’s 

brief is filed with this Court. A submission date will be determined at a later date and the parties 

will be provided with advanced notice of the setting. See Tex.R.App.P. 39.8.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9

th day of December, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
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 Annual Report of Tullys Coffee Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 3, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2005 (the Report), I, John D. Dresel, President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company (principal executive officer), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | (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 operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|/S/    JOHN D.
DRESEL                                                                           
|John D. Dresel President and Chief Operating Officer (principal executive officer) July 13, 2005
March 24, 2015

Mr. Tim Lehman

1722 Moorland Lane

Crystal Lake, IL 60014

Dear Mr. Lehman:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your February 12, 2015 exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

0467), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9521.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
November 13, 2003 

Refer to: HSA-10/LS-56 

Mr. Bob Sik 

Vice President 

Akron Foundry Company 

2728 Wingate Avenue 

P.O. Box 27028 

Akron, Ohio 44319-0009 

Dear Mr. Sik: 

Thank you for your letter October 9 of requesting Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

acceptance of an optional modification to your company’s T-Base breakaway cast aluminum 

products for use on the National Highway System (NHS). You requested that we find the 

relocation of the access door hinges to the right side of the door acceptable for use on the NHS 

under the provisions of National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350 

“Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features.” 

We concur that this optional modification would have no significant impact on the breakaway 

performance of your company’s transformer bases. All appropriate conditions in the previous 

FHWA Acceptance Letters dealing with cast aluminum transformer bases continue to apply. 

Sincerely yours, 

 

 /Original signed by/ 

 

John R. Baxter, P.E. 

Director, Office of Safety Design 

 Office of Safety 

FHWA:HSA-10:NArtimovich:tb:x61331:11/12/03 

File: h://directory folder/nartimovich/LS56-AkronFIN 

cc: HSA-10 (Reader, HSA-1; Chron File, HSA-10; 

 N. Artimovich, HSA-10)
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DENNIS J. BOLOGNA, d/b/a/ )

BAUMAN’s PLUMBING & HEATING, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 09-32 Erie

v. )

)

CITY OF ST. MARY’s, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil action was filed in state court and removed to this Court on February

13, 2009. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise

Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. A

suggestion of Plaintiff’s death [11] was filed on August 11, 2009 and, on October 14,

2009, Defense counsel served an Amended Certificate of Service for Statement Noting

a Party’s Death [12], indicating that service of same had been made on the Plaintiff’s

next of kin. Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution

[13] on February 15, 2010. 

Judge Baxter's Report and Recommendation, filed on February 24, 2010 [14],

recommends that the instant civil action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In

particular, the Magistrate Judge notes that more than ninety (90) days have passed

since Plaintiff’s next of kin were served on October 14, 2009 with the statement noting

his death, and no motion for substitution of the deceased party has been filed pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a) by the Plaintiff’s successor(s) or representative(s). No

objections have been filed to date as to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation. 

After de novo review of the petition and documents in the case, together with the

Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered:

Case 1:09-cv-00032-SJM-SPB Document 15 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

AND NOW, this 6 day of April, 2010; th

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss [13] be, and

hereby is, GRANTED, and the instant civil action be, and hereby is, DISMISSED

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a)(1) for failure to prosecute.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed on

February 24, 2010 [14], is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin 

SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

United States District Judge

cc: All parties of record.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

Case 1:09-cv-00032-SJM-SPB Document 15 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-97579, 333-89030, 333-122986, 333-121165, and 333-121160 on Form S-8 of our reports dated August 27, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of SRAInternational, Inc. (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes—an interpretationof FASB Statement No. 109*) and the effectiveness of SRA International, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting dated August 27, 2008, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SRA International Inc. for the yearended June 30, 2008. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

McLean, Virginia 

August 27, 2008
Description of 2003 Executive Officer Bonus Arrangement



EXHIBIT 10.10 
 
DUCOMMUN INCORPORATED 
 
DESCRIPTION OF 
2003 EXECUTIVE
OFFICER BONUS ARRANGEMENT 
 
The Ducommun Incorporated 2003
Executive Officer Bonus Arrangement (the “Arrangement”) is designed to reward achievement of annual operating plan objectives in order to build profitability and provide competitive compensation levels. The Arrangement contains a
formula-based incentive plan based on net income and cash flow for corporate officers, and operating income and cash flow for subsidiary officers, in excess of established thresholds. The participants in the Arrangement are the four Ducommun
corporate officers and two subsidiary officers. 
 
The
Arrangement provides for bonus awards ranging from 0 to 150% of annual base salary depending on position. The targeted bonus award under the Arrangement is one-third of the maximum bonus eligibility for each individual. Bonus awards are based on a
combination of total corporate performance and on individual performance of executive officers. The subsidiary officers are also measured based upon the financial performance of their respective operating units. All awards are subject to the
approval of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.
#### Dorothy Hebert ARDOIN et al. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY CO. et al.

No. 61011.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 5, 1977.

In re: Travis R. Bohannon applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 350 So.2d 205.

Writ Denied In Part, Granted In Part. We find no error requiring review by this Court as to any assignment relating to the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants cast; accordingly, writs are denied as to further review of this judgment, including its modification for limited remand by the Court of Appeal.

However, insofar as the applicants urge that erroneous rulings as to the “locality rule” prevented the defendants from securing a factual determination that the negligence of Dr. James Bozeman also contributed to the injury, we grant the writ to determine whether, for purposes of third-party demands, error was committed by the rulings complained of by Assignments 1, 2, 3 of Docket Nos. 60,992 and 61,008 and by Assignment 2 of Docket No. 61,011, which errors had the effect of depriving the defendants of evidence relevant to a determination of this doctor’s negligence and whether same was a contributory cause of decedent’s death.

The writs are denied as to all other assignments of error urged including the only assignments raised in # 60,993.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
• 

• 

• 

• Death/serious injury is unacceptable: • Humans make mistakes/humans are vulnerable:

.

.

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR SPEED MANAGEMENT

This Case Study is part of the Safe S y stem Approach for Speed Management Report: Click here to read t he full report her e .
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR SPEED MANAGEMENT

1. Identify camera location: 

of interest in the area.

2. Data collection: 

concerns.

3. Data analysis: 

4. Field observations: 

visit is conducted to evaluate the following site characteristics: location (residential, school 

5. Final approval: 
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR SPEED MANAGEMENT

Figure 9) 

division director, at .

.

.

.

.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




To the Board of Directors of
Mid Ocean Limited


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
33-78626) on Form S-8 and Form S-3 of Mid Ocean Limited of our report dated
November 21, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Mid Ocean
Limited and subsidiaries as of October 31, 1997 and 1996 and the related
consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for
each of the years in the three year period ended October 31, 1997 and our report
dated November 21, 1997 on the schedules included in Form 10-K which reports
appear in the October 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of Mid Ocean Limited
by reference.




KPMG Peat Marwick
Chartered Accountants
Hamilton, Bermuda
January 27, 1998
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration  Statements No.
333-81128, No. 333-60500, No. 333-51856, No. 333-116658, No. 333-11179, No. 333-
36982, No. 333-95883, No. 333-88671, No. 333-77793, No. 333-58311, and No.
333-34645 on Form S-3 and Registration Statements No. 333-113436, No. 333-89764,
No. 333-92905, No. 333-50391, No. 333-34711, and No. 333-04717 on Form S-8 and
Registration Statement No. 333-2678 on Form SB-2 of our reports relating to the
consolidated financial statements and consolidated financial statement schedule
of ProxyMed, Inc. and its subsidiaries (d/b/a MedAvant Healthcare Solutions)
and management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting dated March 14, 2006, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
of ProxyMed, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
April 10, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55202-55203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27858]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[Docket No. AD-FRL-5912-4]


Regional Haze Regulations Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).
ACTION: Reopening of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing the reopening of the public comment 
period on the proposed regional haze regulations published on July 31, 
1997 (62 FR 41138) to accept comments until December 5, 1997.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments on the proposed action, in duplicate if 
possible, to: Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center 
(6102), Attention: Docket No. A-95-38, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, phone (202-260-7548), 
fax (202-260-4400). Comments can also be submitted by electronic mail 
to the following address: A-and-R-D<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#107f737b7564507560717d71797c3e7560713e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d1beb2bab4a591b4a1b0bcb0b8bdffb4a1b0ffb6bea7">[email protected]</span></a>. The docket 
may be inspected at the above address between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. 
on weekdays, and a reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bruce Polkowsky (telephone (919) 541-5532) or Mr. Richard Damberg 
(telephone 919-541-5592), U.S. EPA,

[[Page 55203]]

Visibility and Ecosystems Protection Group (MD-15), Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27707.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed revisions to the existing 
visibility regulations (40 CFR part 51.300-51.307) to address regional 
haze were published on July 31, 1997 and originally provided that the 
comment period would close on October 20, 1997. In writing and at the 
September 18, 1997 public hearing in Denver, Colorado, a number of 
commenters requested an extension of the public comment period for the 
proposed regional haze regulations. In response to these requests, and 
in order to provide the public more time to better understand and 
formulate comment on these proposed regulations, EPA is therefore 
reopening the public comment period on these proposed revisions to 40 
CFR part 51.

    Dated: October 10, 1997.
Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 97-27858 Filed 10-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Financial Data Sheet for Alford Refrigerated Warehouses, Inc.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001078006
<NAME>                        Alford Refrigerated Warehouses, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          2,937,906
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,333,179
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                5,300,612
<PP&E>                          18,815,742
<DEPRECIATION>                  3,962,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  23,121,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           7,132,647
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        75,407
<OTHER-SE>                      6,556,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    23,121,184
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                9,988,992
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   8,055,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                450,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              1,195,456
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 2,448,997
<INCOME-TAX>                    833,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             1,615,997
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    1,615,997
<EPS-BASIC>                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0.21




</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Richard G. NAAS.

No. 62245.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 16, 1978.

In re: Richard G. Naas applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Ouachita Parish.

Granted. Bond reduced to $100,000.00.

SANDERS, C. J., dissents from the reduction of bond.

SUMMERS, J., dissents from the reduction of applicant’s bond.