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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          47,431
<SECURITIES>                                    68,107
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,709
<ALLOWANCES>                                       949
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,248
<PP&E>                                          11,322
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 245,667
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,646
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     231,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   245,667
<SALES>                                         12,402
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,402
<CGS>                                            3,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,277
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,110
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   614
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  37
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,730)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,730)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,730)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)


</TABLE>
March 26, 2015

1 Amendment for Exemption No. 11238 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0719

Registered Owner Name:

San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Registered Owner Address:

8316 Century Park Court

San Diego CA 921 23

Attn: Dallas Cormier, CP52E

Aircraft Description:

Helicopter

Aircraft Serial Number :

100296

- 100123 Vapor 35

100110

- 0123 Vapor 55

Aircraft Builder:

Pulse Aerospace

Year Manufactured:

2015

Aircraft Model Designation:

Vapor 35 & 55

Engine Model:

Kontronik Pyro 850

- 31 Registered Owner Name:

San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Registered Owner Address:

8316 Century Park Court

San Diego CA 92123

Attn: Dallas Cormier, CP52E

Aircraft Description:

Single Electric Motor Fixed Wing

Aircraft Serial Number:

PCN 04E201513001

PCN 04E201513002

Aircraft Builder:

Precision Hawk Inc.

Year Manufactured:

2015

Aircraft Model Designation:

Precision Hawk Lancaster HawkEye

Engine Model:

E flight park 480

San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) received Exemption No. 11238 on March 26,

2015 for the InstantEye Mk

- 2 Gen2.

SDG&E is requesting to amend that exemption to include three additional Unmanned Aircraft

models : the Pulse Aerospace Vapor 35, Vapor 55 a nd the PrecisionHawk Lancaster Hawkeye

. All Unmanned Aircraft are less than 55 lbs including payload and proprietary manuals will be

submitted along with this amendment.

The P ulse Aerospace Vapor 35 has already received exemption No. 11241 with Phoenix Air

Unmanned. The Vapor 55 is a scaled up version of the Vapor 35. The main difference between

the Vapor 35 and Vapor 55 is the size, the maximum takeoff weight for the Vapor 35 is 30lbs and

the max takeoff weight for the Vapor 55 is 55lbs. Perf ormance is the same for both UAV s to

include the same f l ight controls, safety feature s, autopilot, and avionics.

Precision Hawk Lancaster Hawkeye has also already received and exemption, Exemption No.

11274 with United Services Automobile Association on April 2, 2015.

None of our oper ations would change; we are just requesting to add additional Unmanned

Aircraft to our ex emption for greater flexibility.
#### Bento HENRIQUES and Marianna Henriques, husband and wife, Appellants, v. David E. MARLOW, Appellee.

No. 69-241.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Oct. 24, 1969.

Interlocutory appeal from Circuit Court for Sarasota County; John D. Justice, Judge.

Robert L. Moore, of Boone & Kanetsky, Venice, for appellants.

Edwin J. Kennedy, Sarasota, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Well-Bilt Products, Inc. v. Liechty (Fla.App.2d 1964), 167 So.2d 84.

HOBSON, C. J., and PIERCE and M'c-NULTY, JJ„ concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3473 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3473

To extend the prohibition on providing airport improvement grant funds 
to certain entities that have violated intellectual property rights of 
                        United States entities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 12, 2023

Mr. Cornyn (for himself and Mr. Peters) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the prohibition on providing airport improvement grant funds 
to certain entities that have violated intellectual property rights of 
                        United States entities.

    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 ``Air Security Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT 
              GRANT FUNDS TO CERTAIN ENTITIES THAT HAVE VIOLATED 
              INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF UNITED STATES ENTITIES.

    Subsections (a) and (c)(2)(B) of section 10003 of the William M. 
(Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2021 (Public Law 116-283; 134 Stat. 4864) are each amended by striking 
``2023'' and inserting ``2024''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                            APPLIEDTHEORY CORPORATION

                CALCULATION OF LOSS PER SHARE (UNAUDITED) (1)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                          SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
                                                          ------------------
<S>                                                       <C>
Weighted average shares outstanding:
Common stock:
     Shares outstanding at beginning of period                  21,147,902
     Weighted average shares issued during three months
     ended September 30, 1999 (45,674 shares)                       32,250
                                                              ------------
                                                                21,180,152
                                                              ============

Net loss                                                      $ (3,605,000)
                                                              ============

Loss per share attributable to common stockholders            $      (0.17)
                                                              ============
</TABLE>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)For a discussion of loss per share, see Note B of the Notes to the Financial
   Statements provided in Part I, Item 1 of our Form 10-Q for the period ended
   September 30, 1999.


                                       40
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Curtiss B. HAMILTON, Respondent.

No. 39840.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 7, 1970.

Patrick A. Podsaid, Coral Gables, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

Curtiss B. Hamilton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The referee in this cause filed his report with the Board of Governors on June 10, 1970, which report was thereafter filed in this Court on June 12, 1970. Although 60 days have elapsed since the filing in this Court of said report and services on respondent of a copy thereof by the Clerk of this Court, respondent has riot filed any petition for review as he is entitled to do by Rule 11.09(3) (a) of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 32 F.S.A.

The findings of fact by the referee are that the respondent, a member of The Florida Bar while acting as the attorney for Linnie O. Batzer, now deceased, received certain funds of said client amounting to several thousands of dollars and did *152thereafter embezzle and convert the same to his own use. The referee recommends that for such dereliction and particularly for violating Article XI, Rule 11.02(4), of the Integration Rule, 32 F.S.A., Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and Rules 1, 27, 30 and 33 of the Additional Rules Governing the Conduct of Attorneys in Florida, 32 F.S.A., that respondent Curtiss B. Hamilton, a member of The Florida Bar, be disbarred from practice of law in the State of Florida and that the cost of $140.00 be taxed against him. The Court approves in all respects the findings of the referee and his recommendations for punishment.

It is adjudged that respondent Curtiss B. Hamilton, a member of The Florida Bar, be and he hereby is disbarred from the practice of law in Florida and that The Florida Bar do have and recover its cost herein in the sum of $140.00 for which let execution issue.

It is so ordered.

DREW, Acting C. J., and THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certification
  
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Smooth Global (China)
Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) certifies that:
  1.           The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30,
2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
and
  2.           The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  
  November
      24, 2008
              /s/ Zheng
      ShuyingZheng
      Shuying, Chief Executive Officerand
      Chief Financial Officer
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

34 36 38 40 

### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 06/19 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jun 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. William Edward MARSHALL, Petitioner, v. Louis L. WAINWRIGHT, Respondent.

No. 70-212.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 4, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus dismissed.
P.1 

OAR Box 1103 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

93) IV-C-5 

Docket Number: 

A-83-41 

Printed 4/11/2008 1:50:51 PM Sheet 93 of 174 
P.2 

:£B -3 1995 

•-* ~% tog* 

Diane D'Arrigo, Director 

Radioactive Waste Project 

Nuclear Information & Resource . ' * 

Services 

1424 16th Street, NW, Suite 601 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Ms. D'Arrigo: 

This is in response to your letter of January 26, 1995, 

requesting an extension of three months in the comment period on 

the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed recommendations on Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for Exposure of the 

General Public. . '.'''. " 

We have carefully considered your request for an extension of 

the formal period of comment on these proposed recommenda-tions, 

and have decided not to grant your request at this time. We will 

re-evaluate this decision following the public hearing to be held 

February 22-23, 1995, in Washington, DC. Please be assured, 

however, that we will make every effort to consider comments 

received after the expiration of the formal comment period, and 

that the process of developing final recommendations will extend 

well past the extension you have requested. 

Sincerely, 

Allan CB . Richardson 

Deputy Director for Federal 

Guidance 

Criteria & Standards Division 

Office of Radiation Programs 

Enclosure
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: May 12, 2016 521512

________________________________ In the Matter of HENRY BENITEZ, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: March 29, 2016 Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Devine and Mulvey, JJ.

__________ Henry Benitez, Romulus, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. After a sample of his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with using a controlled substance. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charge, and the determination was later affirmed on administrative appeal. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Initially, we note that petitioner's challenge to the sufficiency of the urinalysis test results raises a question of-2- 521512

substantial evidence and, therefore, the matter was properly transferred to this Court (see Matter of Crosby v Goord, 38 AD3d 1110, 1110 [2007]). Turning to the merits, the misbehavior report, positive urinalysis test results and related documentation, together with the testimony adduced at the hearing, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt (see Matter of Williams v Prack, 130 AD3d 1123, 1123 [2015]; Matter of Walker v Annucci, 129 AD3d 1414, 1415 [2015]). Petitioner's contentions that he did not provide a urine specimen because he suffers from shy bladder syndrome and that the correction officer who collected petitioner's specimen allegedly poured an unknown liquid substance into the container created credibility issues for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Jones v Venettozzi, 114 AD3d 980, 981 [2014]; Matter of White v Fischer, 108 AD3d 891, 892 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 853 [2013]). Petitioner's claim that he was improperly denied a videotape of the production and collection of his specimen is without merit as the record reveals that no such videotape existed, and the Hearing Officer cannot be faulted for failing to produce a videotape that did not exist (see Matter of Hand v Gardner, 114 AD3d 988, 989 [2014]; Matter of Chavis v Goord, 58 AD3d 954, 955 [2009]). Petitioner's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our review or are lacking in merit. Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Egan Jr., Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.
ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
#### John B. GIBSON, Jr. v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50270.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 21, 1977.

King & Arnold, James H. Arnold, Jr., Durant, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Frankie Walton White, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Attala County; Clarence E. Morgan, Jr., Judge.

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

AFFIRMED.
#### Luther JONES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-1002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 31, 1970.

Luther Jones, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant and, having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief and allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant *404having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the record we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous and find substantial competent evidence to sustain the conviction, and therefore the adjudication and sentence here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed, and the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27896]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacture of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on August 4, 1997, Novartis 
Pharmaceuticals Corp., Attn: Compliance, East Hanover, 556 Morris 
Avenue, Summit, New Jersey 07901, made application by renewal to the 
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of the Schedule II controlled substance methylphenidate 
(1724).
    The firm plans to manufacture the finished product for distribution 
to its customers.
    Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered 
with DEA to manufacture such substances may file comments or objections 
to the issuance of the proposed registration.
    Any such comments or objections may be addressed, in quintuplicate, 
to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, 
Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, 
Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative 
(CCR), and must be filed no later than December 22, 1997.

    Dated: October 6, 1997.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-27896 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
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 Remedent, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
capacities and on the date 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; 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:      November
      12,  2010
                By:
                /s/
      Stephen RossName:
                Stephen
      RossTitle:
                Chief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Accounting Officer)
#### Sam William ELLIOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-313.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 10, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
3250

3250

3300

3250

3150

3200

3250

3250

3200

3250

3250

3200

3200

3200

3250

3200

3250

3250

3200

3250

3250

3200

3200

3200

3250

3150

3200

3300

3250

3300

3300

3200

3250

3200

3200

3150

3250

3250

3300

¬«25

¬«25

¬«25

¬«25

D BLVD

ROAD 10

9MI RD

Straight

Rolla

NE Feterita

Hugoton

SE

Rolla

SE

Straight

NE

Hough

NE

Hugoton

SW

Hugoton

2

41

02

000m

2 2

40

41

41

000

41

2'

30"

41

41

41

2

41

07'

FEET

40

FEET 2

41

41

000m

000m

84

2

41

FEET 2 2

41

00' 2

2 2

2

41

000 83

07

99

000

81

00

450

83

78 440 88

99

41

11

79

25'

KF

27'

98

41

2

40

2 2

41

41

41

06

98

05

KG

41

00' 2 000m

10

27'

00

03

5'

FEET

30"

30" 86

41

79

30"

40

N

41

85 87

06

2

101°

2'

81

30'

41

11

E

07'

86 37°

30' 470

KF

80

30"

N

84

80

30"

1 490

30"

08

01

5'

03

05

25'

88 22'

82

101°

30"

41

04

37° 37°

37°

2

02

2

04

82

87

01

KG

1

09

22'

10

08

09

000

101° 2

E

101°

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

KANSAS

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

HUGOTON SW, KS

2012

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

HUGOTON SW QUADRANGLE

KANSAS-STEVENS CO.

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

This map was produced to conform with the

National Geospatial Program US Topo Product Standard, 2011.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.6.4

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0

MILES

1

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

Imagery......................................................NAIP, July 2010

Roads................................................©2006-2011 TomTom

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2012

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2010

Contours.............................National Elevation Dataset, 2006

Boundaries..............Census, IBWC, IBC, USGS, 1972 - 2012

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 14S

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Kansas Coordinate System of 1983 (south

zone)

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

KG

KF

41 00

14S

×

Ù

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2012 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 28 ́

26 MILS

6° 43 ́

120 MILS