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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                           5,506
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,207
<ALLOWANCES>                                       692
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,002
<PP&E>                                           4,366
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,697
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,147
<BONDS>                                          2,244
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            38
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7,246)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,382
<SALES>                                         10,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,132
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (499)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,292)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,294)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,294)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.60)


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6131** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. DAVID RAHEEM ANDERSON Defendant

– Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , a t Greenville
. Henry F. Floyd , District Judge. ( 6:07

- cr - 00252

- HFF; 6:10

- cv - 70173

- HFF )

Submitted : May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. David Raheem Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Raheem Anderson seeks to a ppeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2010 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of

a ppealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable ju rists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on proced ural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the reco rd and conclude that Anderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the pending motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 p resented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS MICHAEL GIECK,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

R. J. DONOVAN, Warden; et al.,

 Defendants,

 and

ROMERO, Chief Medical Officer; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-55775

D.C. No. 3:08-cv-01460-DMSJMA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2011** 

Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

FILED

NOV 02 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-55775

Dennis Michael Gieck, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We dismiss.

We are unable to consider Gieck’s contention that the district court erred by

granting defendants’ motion for judgment as a matter of law because Gieck failed

to provide any portion of the trial transcript. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Hall v.

Whitley, 935 F.2d 164, 165 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam). To the extent that Gieck

seeks to challenge the district court’s denial of production of transcripts at

government expense, the district court did not abuse its discretion because Gieck

did not explain the issues that he would raise on appeal. See McKinney v.

Anderson, 924 F.2d 1500, 1511-12 (9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by

Helling v. McKinney, 502 U.S. 903 (1991) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion

and noting that “[p]roduction of the transcript at government expense for an

appellant in forma pauperis in a civil case is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 753 if a trial

judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous and presents a substantial question”).

DISMISSED.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center

**Waterfowl Identification in the Central Flyway**

##       Mexican Duck    

----

****

**Body:** Large duck, 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 pounds, 19 - 22 inches     long. Dark appearance similar to Mottled Duck. Head and neck buffy with distinct     streaking. Bill of male yellow to greenish yellow; female bill orange with     black spots or blotches. Feet orange to reddish orange. **Wings:**     Purplish blue to greenish blue speculum bordered with black and white bars     on leading and trailing edges. White bar on leading edge sometimes indistinct     or buffy. **Voice:** Female, loud *quack;* male, low raspy     *rink.***In Flight:** Similar to Black and Mottled ducks.     **Note:** Restricted to Trans-Pecos of Texas, Western New Mexico     and Eastern Arizona.   

****

----

Previous Section
Return to Contents
Next Section

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey		URL: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/waterfwl/mexican.htm		Page Contact Information: Webmaster		Page Last Modified: Thursday, 03-Aug-2006 11:32:16 EDT		Menlo Park, CA [caww54]
#### Julian B. COLEMAN, Appellant, v. Jerry R. CROSS and Betty Gean Cross, Appellees.

No. 73-10.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 27, 1973.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; John G. Ferris, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
No. 99-1884.

#### Lackawanna County District Attorney et al. *v.*Coss.

C. A. 3d Cir. [Certiorari granted, *ante,*p. 923.] Motion of Colorado for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae*and for divided argument granted.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3678 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the time during 

which a qualified disaster may have occurred for purposes of the special 

rules for personal casualty losses. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 25, 2024 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself and Ms. BUTLER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

the time during which a qualified disaster may have 

occurred for purposes of the special rules for personal 

casualty losses. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Disaster Tax 

5 Relief Act of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 3678 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF RULES FOR TREATMENT OF CER2 TAIN DISASTER-RELATED PERSONAL CAS3 UALTY LOSSES. 

4 For purposes of applying section 304(b) of the Tax5 payer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020, sec6 tion 301 of such Act shall be applied by substituting ‘‘the 

7 Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2024’’ for ‘‘this Act’’ 

8 each place it appears. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### LYDICK v. CHANCE.

No. 38054.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3755 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3755

 To amend the CARES Act to remove a requirement on lessors to provide 
               notice to vacate, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 7, 2024

Mr. Rubio (for himself and Mr. Hagerty) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the CARES Act to remove a requirement on lessors to provide 
               notice to vacate, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Respect State Housing Laws Act''.

SEC. 2. NOTICE.

    Section 4024 of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9058) is amended by 
striking subsection (c).
                                 <all>
```
#### Lawrence SCOTT and Willie C. Mormon, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-329.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 25, 1973.

Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender, and Robert C. Parker, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

*113Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty, Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek reversal of judgments of conviction and sentence based upon a jury verdict finding them guilty of assault with intent to commit murder. Their principal point on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and consequently charges that the trial court erred in denying their motions for judgment of acquittal.

We have carefully read and considered the evidence adduced at the trial and find it wholly sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding that appellants were the ones who perpetrated the crime with which they were charged and that they did so with the requisite premeditated design to effect the death of their victim. The judgments appealed are accordingly affirmed. Starling v. State (Fla.App.1972) 263 So.2d 645; Larry v. State (Fla.1958) 104 So.2d 352; Crawford v. State (1941) 146 Fla. 729, 1 So.2d 713.

RAWLS, C. J., and WIGGINTON and CARROLL, DONALD K., JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                                    SCHEDULE

                   Information on two substantially identical
                              Management Agreements
                             dated February 26, 2003


       (Documents are substantially identical, except as set forth below,
                    to the document included as Exhibit 10.1)


Property                  Owner                     Fee Owner
--------                  -----                     ---------

Homewood Suites(R)        AHF Services Limited      AHF Baton Rouge Limited
Baton Rouge, Louisiana    Partnership               Partnership

Homewood Suites(R)        Apple Hospitality Five    Apple Hospitality Five, Inc.
Albuquerque, New Mexico   Management, Inc.
Bunge North America, Inc. 

P.O. Box 28500 

11720 Borman Drive, St. Louis, MO 63146-1000, USA 

Phone: (314) 292-2374 Fax: (314) 292-4374 

loren.polak@bunge.com

December 7, 2009 

William C. Schrock 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Environmental Engineer 

NRCG, SP&PD 

Mail Code E13-03 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Email: schrock.bill@epa.gov 

Bunge North America, Inc. 

Grain Handling Facility 

40 CFR 60 Subpart DD 

NSPS Survey 

Dear Mr. Schrock: 

Bunge North America, Inc. (Bunge) received a letter of request dated October 8, 2009 under signature of Peter 

Tsirigotis requesting specific information under authority of section 114 of the Clean Air Act. The information is 

requested to enable USEPA to determine whether changes are warranted to the referenced standard. As a result of 

our evaluation of the instructions included with the survey, the requested information is provided enclosed with this 

cover letter and sent electronically to the above referenced email address. 

The survey has been completed for the following listed facilities, as identified by the site specific code as described 

in the instructions. A site flow diagram has been provided for these facilities. Abbreviated emission test reports are 

provided for the tests on grain handling facilities which have been conducted within the past three years. 

Facility Surveys: 

 AGRIFULT 

 BUNGATCH 

 BUNGCAIR 

 BUNGCOUN 

 BUNGCRET 

 BUNGDANV 

 BUNGDECAL 

 BUNGDECAP 

 BUNGDEST 

 BUNGGREE 

 BUNGINDI 

 BUNGKANK 

 BUNGLIND 

 BUNGMARI 

 BUNGMARK 

 BUNGMAYE 

 BUNGMORR 

 BUNGTALLA 

 BUNGVICK 

If you have questions concerning this submittal, please contact the undersigned. 

Sincerely, 

Bunge North America, Inc. 

Loren Polak 

Director of Environmental Management
FHWA-SA-21-032

For more information on this 

and other FHWA Proven Safety 

Countermeasures, please visit 

https://highways.dot.gov/ 

safety/proven-safety-counter

measures and https://highways.

dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/

files/2022-06/fhwasa19040.pdf.

Leading Pedestrian 

Interval

A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to 

enter the crosswalk at an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given 

a green indication. Pedestrians can better establish their presence in the 

crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn right or left. 

LPIs provide the following benefits:

• Increased visibility of crossing

pedestrians.

• Reduced conflicts between

pedestrians and vehicles.

• Increased likelihood of motorists

yielding to pedestrians.

• Enhanced safety for pedestrians

who may be slower to start into the

intersection.

FHWA’s Handbook for Designing 

Roadways for the Aging Population

recommends the use of the LPI at 

intersections with high turning vehicle 

volumes. Transportation agencies 

should refer to the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices for guidance on 

LPI timing and ensure that pedestrian 

signals are accessible for all users.1

Costs for implementing LPIs are very 

low when only signal timing alteration 

is required.

13%

reduction in pedestrianvehicle crashes at 

intersections.2

LPIs reduce potential conflicts between 

pedestrians and turning vehicles. 

Source: FHWA

Safety Benefits:

An LPI allows a pedestrian to establish a 

presence in the crosswalk before vehicles are 

given a green indication. Source: FHWA

1 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Section 4I.06. FHWA, (2023).

2 (CMF ID: 9918) Goughnour, E., D. Carter, C. Lyon, B. Persaud, B. Lan, P. Chun, I. Hamilton, 

and K. Signor. “Safety Evaluation of Protected Left-Turn Phasing and Leading Pedestrian 

Intervals on Pedestrian Safety.” Report No. FHWA-HRT-18-044. Federal Highway 

Administration. (October 2018)

OFFICE OF SAFETY

Proven Safety 

Countermeasures
#### COCONUT GROVE PREP SCHOOL and the Insurance Company of North America, Petitioners, v. Mary FISHER and the Florida Department of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commission, an Administrative Agency, Respondents.

No. 44683.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 6, 1974.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents.
#### Evelyn LEAF, Appellant, v. Donald FRERE, Appellee.

No. 76-1328.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 23, 1977.

Stuart J. Susser, Miami, for appellant.

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

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of *Bencomo v. Bencomo,*200 So.2d 171 (Fla.1967); *Heaton v. Heaton,*304 So.2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); *Doyle v. Doyle,*307 So.2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
#### B. L. SHAW v. CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 60312.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 7, 1977.

In re: B. L. Shaw applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Caddo. 347 So.2d 39.

Writ denied. The result is correct.

DIXON, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
#### STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. Manuel BRANCH et ux.

No. 3813.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

Feb. 2, 1970.

D. Ross Banister, Chester E. Martin, Johnie E. Branch, Jr., William W. Irwin, Jr., J. David McNeill, III, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant.

Louis B. Porterie, New Orleans, curator ad hoc for defendant-appellee.

Ralph D. Dwyer, Jr., New Orleans, for. Caldonia Davis Branch, defendant-appellee.

Before REGAN, CHASEZ and BAR-NETTE, JJ.

BARNETTE, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in our opinion this day rendered in State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways v. Barton, et ux., 231 So.2d 403 the judgment appealed in this case, State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways v. Branch, et ux., is affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### William MARKHAM, Appellant, v. William G. ZINKIL, Earl Kraft, J. W. Stevens, and George Richardson, Members of the Broward County Canvassing Board, Appellees.

No. 38467.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 2, 1969.

Rehearing Denied July 18, 1969.

Carl A. Hiaasen, of McCune, Hiaasen, Crum & Ferris, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

A. C. Paoli, of Paoli & Paoli, Hollywood, Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore, and Fischer & Hinckley, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
##### 



COMPREHENSIVE CARE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Exhibit 31.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Robert J. Landis, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Comprehensive Care
Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
first fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 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 registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting. /s/ ROBERT J. LANDISOctober 7, 2004
    
    Robert J. LandisChairman, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KENNETH HOLMES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 594 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of April, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Edgar GIBSON v. EXXON CORPORATION.

No. 62657.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Edgar Gibson, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of *576Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 360 So.2d 230.

Writ denied.