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

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000880416
<NAME>NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                              PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                  553,674
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 47,920
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      58,903
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                    91,116
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             751,613
<COMMON>                                         1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  160,999
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,777
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             162,777
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                        65,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>              270,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             253,836
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              751,613
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  132,382
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         5,342
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  92,145
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 109,540
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     22,842
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                          (1,550)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              33,345
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    17,320
<NET-INCOME>                                16,025
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>               16,025
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    27,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                      77,675
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00

</TABLE>
* The Honorable Myron H. Bright , United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 06a0308n.06 Filed: May 3, 2006 No. 05-1508 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

TROY OGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. RICK HOCKER, Defendant-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Before: GIBBONS, GRIFFIN, and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges. * JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Reverend Troy D. Ogle, an international evangelist formerly affiliated with the Church of God, sued Reverend Rick Hocker, a Church of God pastor, for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit’s central allegation was that Hocker made false statements concerning Ogle’s sexuality. Hocker invoked the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and moved to di smiss the suit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Alternatively, he argued that he was entitled to summary judgment on the merits of Ogle’s defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. The district court rejected Hocker’s eccles iastical abstention argument but granted him summary judgment on Ogle’s defamation claim. In its order granting summary judgment, the districtOgle v. Hocker , No. 05-1508

2 court explained that Hocker’s alleged statements were not actionable under Michigan defamation law. The order did not dispose of Ogle’s intenti onal infliction of emotional distress claim, and the district court did not certify an interlocutory appeal. Ogle timely appealed to this court, raising arguments in support of his defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. We dismiss Ogle’s appeal because “we must sua sponte police our own jurisdiction, regardless of whether the parties challenged jurisdiction.” Ohio v. Doe , 433 F.3d 502, 506 (6th Cir. 2006). Our appellate jurisdiction is limited to fi nal judgments rendered by the district courts, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291, unless a district court certifies an interlocutory appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). We may review “a decision by the District Court . . . [only if it] ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. ” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord , 449 U.S. 368, 373 (1981) (internal quotation omitted); see also Mississippi Valley Equip. Co. v. Slurry Sys., Inc. , 948 F.2d 1289, 1289 (6th Cir. 1991) (table ) (indicating that this court may review an order issued by the district court only “i f it leaves nothing remaini ng for the district court to do except execute final judgment”). Therefore, “an order disposing of fewer than all the . . . claims in an action is nonappealable” to this court. Mississippi Valley , 948 F.2d at 1289

. Accordingly, we dismiss Ogle’s app eal for want of jurisdiction becausethe district court order failed to dispose of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
#### STRIBLING-PUCKETT, INC., Jimmy Cummings and Joe Schultz, et al. v. Jerry Lewis LADNER and the North River Insurance Company.

No. 50478.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 23, 1978.

Lee Williamson, Bay St. Louis, for appellants.

Bryant & Stennis, Thomas L. Stennis, II, Gulfport, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., WALKER and BOWLING, JJ., and BILLY G. BRIDGES, Commissioner.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Hancock County; John S. Morris, Chancellor.

AFFIRMED.

SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, BROOM, LEE and COFER, JJ., concur.
257 La. 280

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Russell ALEXANDER.

No. 51058.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 5, 1971.

In re: Russell Alexander applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RONY MARC,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-3241

[May 19, 2022]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 56-2004-CF-003770 A.

Brett S. Chase of Chase Law Florida, P.A., Saint Petersburg, for 

appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 32
 
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 Felix Elinson, the President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director of Game Face Gaming, Inc. (the “Registrant”), certifies, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 
 
 Date: March 24, 2011
By:
/s/ Felix ElinsonName:   Felix ElinsonTitle:   President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director (Principal Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)
  
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Lloyd Wayne PING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-927.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 27, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
1

Coronavirus Relief Fund

Application of the Single Audit Act to Alaska Native Corporations

July 5, 2022

The Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security Act (CARES Act) reserved $8 billion to make payments to tribal governments. On June 

25, 2021, the Supreme Court held in Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation

that Alaska Native regional and village corporations (ANCs) are considered Indian tribes under 

the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA) and are thus eligible for 

payments from the CRF. Consistent with this ruling, Treasury, in consultation with Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), has determined that ANCs are subject to the requirements of the 

Single Audit Act and its implementing regulations, 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, with respect to 

payments received from the CRF. 

Due to the delayed determination, OMB has approved a six-month audit submission extension for 

fiscal year 2021 for ANCs that received payments from the CRF directly or indirectly as a 

subrecipient. Please note that if an ANC is required to conduct an audit under the Single Audit Act

based on awards received from other federal awarding agencies, the more stringent deadline must 

be followed.

The Single Audit Act and its implementing regulations at 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, require a 

non-federal entity that expends $750,000 or more in federal awards in its fiscal year to conduct a 

single audit or program-specific audit. These audits are intended to provide assurance to federal 

awarding agencies that the non-federal entity has adequate internal controls in place and is 

generally in compliance with the program requirements.

Non-federal entities subject to an audit under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F include states, local 

governments, Indian tribes, universities, and non-profit organizations that carry out a federal award 

as a recipient or subrecipient.

ANCs should submit their single audits or program-specific audits through the Federal Audit 

Clearinghouse (FAC) as Indian tribes. Pursuant to 2 CFR 200.512(b)(2), Indian tribes and tribal 

organizations may opt not to authorize the FAC to make the reporting package publicly available.

The table below summarizes the extended deadlines for various fiscal year-ends:

Fiscal Year-End Single Audit Deadline Extended Deadline Due to 

Delayed Determination

09/30/2021 06/30/2022 12/31/2022

12/31/2021 09/30/2022 03/31/2023

06/30/2022 03/31/2023 09/30/2023
FILED

May 7, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

MAY 1998 SESSION

ROY CLEVELAND SMITH, JR., )

)

Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9712-CR-00468

)

 vs. ) SHELBY COUNTY

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. P-18667

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s

petition for post-conviction relief. On June 17, 1996, the petitioner pled guilty to rape of

a child and received a fifteen year sentence. No appeal was taken. On June 23, 1997,

the petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief was filed by the trial court. Finding that

the statute of limitations had expired, the trial court dismissed the petition without a

hearing.

On appeal, the petitioner claims that he timely submitted his petition to the

appropriate prison authorities for mailing. See Rule 28, §2(G), Rules of the Supreme

Court. In support of his position, the petitioner attaches as an appendix to his brief a

copy of a mail room receipt dated June 16, 1997. However, there is nothing in the

record to substantiate the petitioner’s claim in this respect. It is the petitioner’s duty to

prepare an adequate record on appeal. State v. Banes, 874 S.W.2d 73, 82 (Tenn.

Crim. App. 1993). This Court cannot consider an issue which is not preserved in the

record for review. See T.R.A.P. 24(b). Moreover, allegations of fact contained in a

brief may not be considered as evidence. State v. Bennett, 798 S.W.2d 783, 789

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1990). Accordingly, the petitioner’s claim must fail.

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a), a person in custody under a sentence

of a court of this state must petition for post-conviction relief within one year of the date
2

of the final action of the highest state appellate court to which an appeal is taken or, if

no appeal is taken, within one year of the date on which judgment became final. The

Post-Conviction Procedure Act provides several limited exceptions to the one-year

statute of limitations, however none of them are applicable to the present case. See §

40-30-202(b). The record reflects that the petition in this case was filed beyond the

applicable statute of limitations, and is, therefore, untimely. Accordingly, the postconviction court properly dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. T.C.A. §

40-30-206(b).

For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the trial court did not err

in dismissing the petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20,

Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Enter, this the ___ day of May, 1998.

_____________________________

PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

_____________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE

_____________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
#### LAMM v. The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA.

No. 38326.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. So.2d 219. 218
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 provided the U.S. Department of the Treasury $9 billion for the 

Emergency Capital Investment Program (ECIP) to provide direct investments into Community Development 

Financial Institution (CDFI) and Minority Depository Institution (MDI) banks, credit unions and holding companies. 

These investments are designed to support the efforts of community financial institutions to, among other things, 

provide loans, grants, and forbearance for small and minority-owned businesses and consumers, especially in lowincome and financially underserved communities that struggled the most during the COVID-19 crisis.

These mission-driven financial institutions specialize in delivering responsible capital, credit and financial services 

to underserved communities. The investments made by Treasury are expected to be used for a range of 

community investments, including loans to low-income and minority borrowers and underserved small business, 

the development and preservation of affordable housing, and investments in community development projects.

Emergency Capital Investment Program Fact Sheet

Hawaii

 

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/emergency-capital-investment-program

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email ecip@treasury.gov for additional information

Treasury has awarded institutions headquartered within Hawaii

$4 million in ECIP investment funds. 

Institution Headquarters City Type Award Amount 

Kauai Federal Credit Union Lihue CDFI & MDI $ 4,000,000 

Note: Headquarters City indicates institution headquarters location only. Institution's lending activity may go beyond identified city.
#### Carolyn Barnard SLIGH, Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-415.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 27, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
255 La. 917

#### Garrett Frank VOGT v. Alton WHEAT and the Circle Drilling Company, Inc.

No. 50496.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 1970.

In re: Garrett Frank Vogt applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of St. Charles. 232 So.2d 526.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, we find no error of law in its judgment.
5/1/2023 5/2/2023 5/3/2023

Treasury Bills Net 44,986 -22,010 -24

Treasury Notes Net -73,727 -1 -1

Treasury Bonds Net 13,161 0 0

Marketable Inflation Compensation 0 0 0

Marketable TIPS Inflation Adjustment 1,043 202 200

Total Marketable Activity -14,537 -21,809 175

Airport and Airway Trust Fund 0 0 -34

Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund 0 0 0

Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund -6,056 -123 -1

Department of Defense Medicare Eligible Retiree Fund 359 1 -280

Employees' Health Benefits Fund 2,453 -54 -229

Employees' Life Trust Fund 113 -3 -17

Exchange Stabilization Fund 6 2 2

Deposit Insurance Fund 67 2 -580

Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund -6 2,396 -6,237

FHA, Mutual Mortgage Insurance Capital Reserve Account, HUD 0 9 -1

Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund -14,888 3,821 30

Federal Old-Age And Survivors Insurance Trust Fund -24 13,994 -20,446

Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund -30,991 -508 9,235

Foreign Service Retirement And Disability Fund -96 0 0

Highway Trust Fund 44 16 15

National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund 14 3 3

Deposits, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Bonus Bids, MMS 0 0 0

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 8 1 -9

Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund 0 0 0

Postal Service Fund -107 259 -21

Railroad Retirement Account -1,062 64 12

Thrift Savings Fund 60,330 -5,725 14,700

Unemployment Trust Fund 1,117 7,640 2,316

Nonmarketable TIPS Inflation Adjustment 749 146 145

Nonmarketable Inflation Compensation 1 0 0

All Other Trust Funds 5,199 272 156

Total Government Account Series (Net) 17,230 22,215 -1,240

Certificates of Indebtedness 14 19 -12

Discount Adjustment 416 -598 510

Domestic Series 4 1 1

Foreign Series 0 0 0

State and Local Government Series -3,829 219 627

Tax and Loss Bonds 0 0 0

United States Savings Bonds 701 -48 -62

Total Non-Marketable Activity (Net) 14,537 21,809 -175

Daily Public Debt Activity 0 0 0

Total Public Debt Subject to Limit 31,381,438 31,381,438 31,381,438

Daily Extraordinary Measures 

Investments Suspended (-)/Reinvested (+) 67,830 -6,384 15,161

Daily Debt Subject to Limit Activity 

($ millions)
Date

Impacted

Funds

Measures 

Authorized

Measures 

Used

Measures 

Remaining

CSRDF/PSRHBF 1/ 21 (21) 0

G Fund 295 (201) 94

ESF 17 0 17

Totals* 332 (222) 110

1/ Includes Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, and Postal 

Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund. Assumes Debt Issuance Suspension 

Period (DISP) ends on June 5, 2023. Measures authorized includes the 

value of early redemptions, which will decrease by roughly $4 billion on 

June 1, 2023.

DEBT SUBJECT TO LIMIT 

EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES

($ billions)

5/3/2023

*Differences may occur due to rounding.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Cone
Mills Corporation Consolidated Financial Statements Dated April 2, 2000, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000023304
<NAME>                        Cone Mills Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-2-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-3-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-2-2000
<CASH>                                         1,025
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  65,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,050
<INVENTORY>                                    116,892
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185,673
<PP&E>                                         464,861
<DEPRECIATION>                                 249,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 487,308
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,752
<BONDS>                                        119,227
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    37,366
<COMMON>                                       2,548
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,276
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   487,308
<SALES>                                        141,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,677
<CGS>                                          124,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  138,002
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (332)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (5,108)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,101)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (374)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (277)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (277)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.04)



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 17, 2009 

p0610 

Order 

 

June 17, 2009 

138157 

HOME OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-CounterDefendant-Appellee, 

v SC: 138157 

 COA: 280112 

Mecosta CC: 05-017158-CK 

LARRY SELFRIDGE and BETTY 

SELFRIDGE, 

Defendants-CounterPlaintiffs-Appellees, 

and 

HALLIE SELFRIDGE, PORTER D. SELFRIDGE, 

Minor, by his Next Friend, HALLIE SELFRIDGE 

and BRIAN SELFRIDGE, 

 Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 18, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

HATHAWAY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
July 26, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GARY EDMUND HAYNES, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00752-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Gary Edmund Haynes.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.