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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
CONTINENTAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
AUGUST 31, 1999. (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,920
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,206
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (674)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,646
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,098
<PP&E>                                          22,777
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,820)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,680
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,404
<BONDS>                                          5,813
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,129
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,680
<SALES>                                          2,935
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,838
<CGS>                                            2,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 156
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (613)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (613)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (613)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)


</TABLE>
#### CITY OF WEST PALM BEACH, etc., and West Palm Beach Marina, Inc., etc., Petitioners, v. George WILLIAMS and John W. Turrentine, Respondents.

No. 42938.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 10, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Haiti – Infrastructure Program

July 25, 2011

U.S. Position

The United States welcomes this project to create thousands of jobs in Haiti and create new 

opportunities for sustainable economic opportunities in one of Haiti's poorest regions. This 

project addresses Haiti's vision to establish new poles of economic growth and prosperity outside 

of Port-au-Prince and tackle widespread unemployment, which is particularly affecting Haiti's 

youth.

The United States Government will partner with the Haitian Government and the Inter-american 

Development Bank (IDB) in the North Industrial Park project, by investing in new housing and 

electrification for businesses and communities in Haiti's Northern Corridor, and providing funds 

to modernize port facilities and facilitate increased trade across borders. The renewed interest in 

Haiti as a destination for light manufacturing was in part encouraged by generous trade 

preferences the U.S. Congress passed for Haiti last year to promote reconstruction and 

sustainable development.

The United States welcomes the intensive efforts by the IDB to safeguard Haiti's environmental 

assets throughout the design and development of the project. In particular, the United States 

appreciates the separate studies to fill gaps in the current Environmental and Social Impact 

Assessment (ESIA), especially the hydrological assessment, which will feed into the 

environmental action plan and the master development plan so that direct and indirect impacts 

are addressed to meet IDB standards. The United States also appreciates the effort to address the 

needs of those being adversely affected by the project. The United States strongly supports

IDB's full application of its environmental and social safeguards in a timely manner as the 

project moves forward. In this respect, we appreciate the loan agreement conditions put forward 

in the document.

Notwithstanding strong U.S. support for the goals of this investment, the United States must 

abstain pursuant to a Congressional mandate because of the gaps in the substance of the ESIA 

and the relatively late disclosure of the ESIA. The United States hopes, going forward, that 

management will address these deficiencies. Given the critical importance of the operation and 

the tight timeframes for implementation, the United States looks forward to close collaboration 

with the IDB so that this project can be successful in terms of job creation and environmental 

and social sustainability.
#### Martha B. MILLS, wife, Appellant, v. E. Richard MILLS, Jr., Appellee.

Nos. GG-166, GG-238.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 12, 1978.

*955Nat M. Turnbull and Lynn James Hinson of Turnbull, Abner & Daniels, Winter Park, for appellant.

E. Richard Mills, Jr., in pro per.

PER CURIAM.

Subsequent to the mandate having issued in *Mills v. Mills,*339 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), the respondent in the original proceedings, Martha B. Mills, filed a motion to correct the original order granting motion for judgment on the pleadings which had been affirmed in the prior opinion. This motion was filed on March 30, 1977, some thirteen months after the entry of the original judgment on the pleadings, and sought attorney’s fees for defense in the trial court of the original motion to modify final judgment. The trial court held that it had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. This is an appeal from that ruling.

The appellant inartfully pled a claim for attorney’s fees in the original proceeding in that she only referred to the fact that she had retained a law firm to represent her and had agreed to pay them a reasonable fee. She made no prayer for an award of attorney’s fees and she did not allege her need or the appellee’s ability to pay. *See Johnson v. Johnson,*346 So.2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). When the original petition for modification was under advisement, appellant’s attorney declined the court’s invitation to amend her pleadings but did request the opportunity to be heard on attorney’s fees if the court ruled in her favor. Whether the court’s failure to rule on the question of attorney’s fees or to retain jurisdiction of that subject could have been reversed on appeal is moot because no appeal was taken on this issue.

Thus, appellant’s remedy, if any, must be under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540. Subsection (a) of the rule permits clerical mistakes to be corrected at any time, but the failure to include a ruling on attorney’s fees can hardly be said to be a mistake which is clerical in nature when there is no indication that the court ever intended to pass on the issue of attorney’s fees when the original order was entered. *See De Baun v. Michael,*333 So.2d 106 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). If a mistake was made, it would have been one which could only be reached under subsection (b)(1), and this portion of the rule provides that the motion must be filed *956within one year after the entry of the judgment from which the relief is sought. *Cf. Wilder v. Wilder,*251 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).

Therefore, the order denying the motion relating to attorney’s fees and to correct order, etc. be and the same is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

BARKDULL, Jr., Acting C. J., and GRIMES and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
#### CITY OF LIGHTHOUSE POINT, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida ex rel. FPA CORPORATION, etc., Respondent, (two cases).

No. 43008.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 12, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 267 So.2d 97.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COURIER CORPORATION FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
DECEMBER 30, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000025212
<NAME> COURIER CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY>U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   QTR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              26
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,148<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                       636
<INVENTORY>                                     12,906
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,294
<PP&E>                                          92,319
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,774
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         4,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,843<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,225
<SALES>                                         30,115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,115
<CGS>                                           24,504
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,407
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 212
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    917
<INCOME-TAX>                                       293
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                624
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       624
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30

<FN>
<F1> Receivables are net of allowances for uncollectible accounts. 
<F2> Other-SE includes treasury stock
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Augustas CABRE, Appellant, v. Douglas BROWN, Betty L. Brown, and M. G. I. C. Indemnity Corporation, Appellees.

No. GG-368.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 7, 1978.

David E. Bembry, Madison, for appellant.

Frank M. Gafford, Lake City, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

We are asked to determine the priority of two liens, one a landlord’s lien and the other a lien filed pursuant to Section 319.27(2), Florida Statutes (1975), securing a conditional sales contract on a mobile home. We reverse the final judgment and find the landlord’s lien the superior lien.

On November 30, 1973, appellant Augustus Cabré purchased two acres of land from Douglas and Betty Brown. The Browns had a mobile home located on the property which they agreed would be removed within two weeks. This was never done. The trailer remained on the property for almost three years, and Cabré filed an action in September, 1976, asking distress for rent and seeking a lien under Section 83.08, Florida Statutes (1975), for the fair market rental value of the two acre plot.

First Federal Savings and Loan of Gainesville held a lien on the trailer at the time it was abandoned by the Browns. When payments were not made by the Browns, First Federal looked to appellee M.G.I.C., its credit insurer, for payment. M.G.I.C. paid the outstanding amount of the loan but First Federal, rather than assigning its lien to M.G.I.C., filed a satisfaction of the lien on August 22, 1974. It was not until almost two years later, in June, 1976, that the assignment of First Federal’s ■interest in the mobile home to M.G.I.C. was completed. When distress for rent was *847sought by the landlord, Cabré, M.G.I.C. counter-claimed asserting its prior possesso-ry right to the mobile home.

The trial judge incorrectly granted judgment to M.G.I.C. for possession of the mobile home. The Browns, upon abandoning the trailer on the property, became tenants at sufferance, and Cabré properly asserted a landlord’s lien against the personalty. *Pillans & Smith Co., Inc. v. Lowe,*117 Fla. 249, 157 So. 649 (1934); *West’s Drug Stores, Inc. v. Allen Inv. Co.,*125 Fla. 823, 170 So. 447 (1936). That lien came into existence not when the action in distress for rent was brought, but when the tenancy came into being. Section 83.08(2) allows a lien to a landlord for rent:

> “Upon all other property of the lessee or his sub-lessee or assigns, usually kept on the premises. This lien shall be superior to any lien acquired subsequent to the bringing of such property on the premises leased.”

See *Lovett v. Lee,*141 Fla. 395, 193 So. 538 (1940); *G.M.C.A. Corp. v. Noni, Inc.,*227 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Because M.G.I.C.’s lien was not perfected until long after the abandonment of the trailer on the property of Cabré, it is clear the landlord’s lien is superior.

The final judgment is REVERSED with directions judgment be entered for Cabré.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2409 

To support security and law enforcement training and cooperation between 

the United States and Israel. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2021 

Mr. KELLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To support security and law enforcement training and 

cooperation between the United States and Israel. 

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 ‘‘U.S.-Israel Coopera5 tion Expansion Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) On May 9, 2018, the House Committee on 

9 Foreign Affairs adopted an amendment stating that 

10 it was the policy of the United States to support biVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:16 May 27, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2409.IH H2409

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2409 IH

1 lateral cooperation between United States and 

2 Israeli law enforcement personnel. 

3 (2) The United States has a long history of co4 operation with Israel. 

5 (3) The sharing of distinct experiences can pro6 mote security against terrorism, peaceful resolutions 

7 to community disputes, and the protection of spaces 

8 for civil society. 

9 (4) Congress has supported bilateral coopera10 tion with Israel to combat the threat of illicit cross11 border tunneling and the associated trafficking in 

12 arms, persons, and militants and to combat threats 

13 from unmanned aerial systems. 

14 (5) The United States supports law enforce15 ment training, cooperation, and education globally. 

16 SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

17 It is the sense of Congress that— 

18 (1) the United States supports the inclusion of 

19 Israel in the International Law Enforcement Acad20 emy in Europe; and 

21 (2) the Secretary of State should support 

22 projects in the Middle East through the Inter23 national Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement 

24 program. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2409 IH

1 SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY. 

2 It is the policy of the United States— 

3 (1) to support bilateral training between United 

4 States and Israeli law enforcement personnel, for the 

5 purpose of sharing of best practices relating to anti6 terrorism, community policing, and managing mass 

7 casualties; and 

8 (2) to continue to counter threats to United 

9 States and Israeli security and embassy protection 

10 posed by illicit cross-border tunneling and unmanned 

11 aerial systems. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 239 (Friday, December 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65474-65475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32468]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

December 6, 1997.
    The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) has submitted the following 
public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. 
Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the OTS 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
OTS Clearance Officer, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20552.
    Dates: Written comments should be received on or before January 12, 
1998 to be assured of consideration.
    OMB Number: 1550-0023.
    Form Number: OTS Form 1313 and OTS Form 1568.
    Type of Review: Revision of a previously approved collection.
    Title: Thrift Financial Report.
    Description: OTS collects financial data from OTS-related savings 
associations and their subsidiaries in order to assure their safety and 
soundness as depositories of the personal monies of the general public. 
The OTS monitors the association's financial position an interest-rate 
risk so that adverse conditions can be remedied promptly.
    Respondents: Savings and Loan Associations and Savings Banks.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1239.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 33 average hours.
    Frequency of Response: 12 per year.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 183,343 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Colleen M. Devine, (202) 906-6025, Office of 
Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20552.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of Management 
and

[[Page 65475]]

Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
Catherine C. M. Teti,
Director, Records Management and Information Policy.
[FR Doc. 97-32468 Filed 12-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 240 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 240

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 2021

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Labor 
   to prioritize the provision of services to homeless veterans with 
 dependents in carrying out homeless veterans reintegration programs, 
                        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 ``Homeless Veterans with Children 
Reintegration Act''.

SEC. 2. PRIORITY UNDER HOMELESS VETERANS REINTEGRATION PROGRAMS FOR 
              HOMELESS VETERANS WITH DEPENDENTS.

    (a) Priority for Homeless Veterans With Dependent Children.--
Subsection (a) of section 2021 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``Subject to'' and inserting ``(1) Subject 
        to'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as 
        subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) In conducting programs under this section, the Secretary 
shall prioritize the provision of services to homeless veterans with 
dependents.''.
    (b) Additional Reporting Requirements.--Subsection (d) of such 
section is amended--
            (1) by striking ``the report an evaluation of services'' 
        and all that follows and inserting ``each such report--''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(1) an evaluation of services furnished to veterans under 
        this section and an analysis of the information collected under 
        subsection (b);
            ``(2) an analysis of any gaps in access to shelter, safety, 
        and services for homeless veterans with dependent children; and
            ``(3) recommendations for improving any gaps identified 
        under paragraph (2).''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 18, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
2 of 5: Hg Coal & IGCC Floor Spreadsheets 

 RobertJ Wayland 

 to: Cortney_Higgins 

 11/21/2011 03:49 PM 

 Cc: 

 Bill Maxwell 

 

IGCC_floor analysis_111811.xlsx 

Coal_Hg_floor analysis_111811.xlsx
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



In connection with the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Horizon Technology Finance Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) for the annual period ended December 31,
2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert D. Pomeroy,
Jr., as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:



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



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



|/s/ Robert D. Pomeroy, Jr. |                                                  | 
|-------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ | 
|Name:                      | Robert D. Pomeroy, Jr.                           | 
|Title:                     | Chief Executive Officer andChairman of the Board | 



Date: March 10, 2015
August 15, 2011 

Adam Clark 

Air Quality Planning Unit 

US EPA Region 8 

1595 Wynkoop St. 

Denver, CO 80202 

Dear Adam: 

 On December 17, 2009, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission approved a Clean Air Act section 

175A(b) second 10-year maintenance plan for the Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide Attainment/Maintenance 

Area. This second 10-year plan was submitted to the EPA on March 31, 2010, and was prepared in compliance 

with the EPA's Carbon Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) policy. 

The State of Colorado is providing additional material to clarify and supplement the Air Pollution Control 

Division's (APCD) Technical Support Document (TSD) that was included with the Colorado Springs Carbon 

Monoxide LMP. 

The December 17, 2009 version of the TSD inadvertently provided only a 2007 annual emission inventory for 

carbon monoxide in the Colorado Springs Attainment/Maintenance Area. The enclosed TSD serves as a 

supplement and is in addition to the original December 17, 2009 version of the TSD. The emission inventory in 

this supplemental TSD represents 2007 average daily winter conditions, and was calculated by the APCD in 2009 

and included in the Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide LMP submitted in 2010. 

This supplemental TSD also provides further explanation of the ways in which the original 2009 TSD, which 

provided an annual emission inventory, was used to calculate many of the daily emission inventory totals 

provided in the Colorado Springs Carbon Monoxide LMP. 

Sincerely, 

Christopher Dann 

Air Pollution Control Division 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

 

cc: Michael Silverstein, CAQCC