alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TRADE, INVESTMENT & THE CURRENT ACCOUNT: IMPORTS = EXPORTS + NET FOREIGN INVESTMENT 

January 21, 2003       Critics are once again questioning the size and sustainability of the U.S. current account deficit.  However, it is clear from the evidence that the U.S. current account deficit reflects a surplus of good investment opportunities in the U.S. and a deficit of growth prospects elsewhere in the world.  This situation does not warrant a change in U.S. economic policy, nor would such a change in policy be welcome by the rest of the world.  As a matter of national income accounting, the current account is, by definition, the difference between national saving and investment, and is equal to the net accumulation of U.S. assets (portfolio and direct investments) by foreigners.  The information provided by the current account balance itself is limited.  A deficit is not necessarily bad, nor is a surplus necessarily good.  This is because the U.S. is well integrated into the global capital market.  It can finance its current account deficit in this capital market by selling equities, private debts, and government bonds — all denominated in dollars — without having to draw down international reserves or to incur foreign currency obligations.  The best way to interpret the present U.S. current account deficit is as follows:  Because of relatively good prospects for growth in the United States compared to the rest of the world, international capital is flowing to the U.S. in search of the safety and acceptable returns offered here.  Portfolio capital is not flowing to emerging markets as in the mid-1990s.  Europe faces long standing structural challenges (high average unemployment, sluggish growth) that have not gone away despite the successful launch of the Euro.  Japan is entering its second decade of economic contraction and continuing fiscal and financial difficulties.  Not surprisingly in this setting, capital is flowing into the U.S. because of the relatively superior past performance and expectations for future growth in the U.S. economy.  

Treasury Office of Economic Policy 

“Free markets and open trade are the best weapons against poverty, disease and tyranny.” 

                                             President George W. Bush
**Exhibit 32.1**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONI, E. Randall Chestnut, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of CrownCrafts, Inc. (the “Company”), do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ending October 2, 2005 (the“Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: November 15, 2005         /s/ E. Randall Chestnut         E. Randall Chestnut, Chairman of the Board,    President and Chief Executive Officer
*Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment**Product ingredient source information may be entitled to confidential treatment*_____________________________________ Page is not included in this copy. Pages 71 through 73 are not included in this copy.

_______________________________________________________________ The material not included contains the following type of information: _____ Identity of product inert ingredients. _____ Identity of product impurities. _____ Description of the product manufacturing process. _____ Description of quality control procedures. _____ Identity of the source of product ingredients. _____ Sales or other commercial/financial information. _____ A draft product label. _____ The product confidential statement of formula. _____ Information about a pending registration action. _____ FIFRA registration data. ____ The document is a duplicate of page(s) ____. _____ The document is not responsive to the request. _____ Proprietary information pertaining to the chemical composition of an inert ingredient provided by the source of the ingredient. _____ Attorney-Client Privilege. __X___ Claimed Confidential by submitter upon submission to the Agency. _____ Internal Deliberative Information.

* The information not included is generally considered confidential by product registrants. If you have any questions, please contact the individual who prepared the response to your request.

_________________________________________________________________
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 17

- 00418

- CR

J USTIN R

YAN R UBIO

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 297th District Court

of Tarrant County (1452160D)

April 11, 2019

Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is af firmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

February 17, 2023

No. 04

- 22

- 00766

- CR

Matthew Hernandez YANEZ

,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR10156 Honorable Laura Lee Parker , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due on January 26, 2023

. To date, no brief or motion for extension of time to file a brief has been filed.

We order Appellant’s counsel Patrick B . Montgomery to file a motion for extension of time, a motion to dismiss

, or the brief within ten days of the date of this order.

If no brief or motion is filed by that date, we will abate this appeal to the trial court for an abandonment hearing without further notice

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2).
Appellant’s counsel is cautioned that, to protect Appellant’s rights, this court m ay initiate proceedings under Rule 38. See i d. R. 38.8(b)(4).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 17th day of February, 2023

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               FEB-06-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  FEB-08-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JUL-25-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<CASH>                                  965
<SECURITIES>                          5,870
<RECEIVABLES>                        55,845
<ALLOWANCES>                            458
<INVENTORY>                          17,408
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     87,870
<PP&E>                              248,319
<DEPRECIATION>                     (130,112)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      215,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                36,107
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                              7,067
<OTHER-SE>                           95,091
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        215,226
<SALES>                             144,351
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    144,351
<CGS>                                22,090
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       144,952
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    2,143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       1,356
<INCOME-TAX>                            475
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     881
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                            881
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.09
        







<PAGE>

</TABLE>
#### Jacob Clifford NICHOLS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. Q-72.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 1973.

Dan H. Stubbs, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. See McPhee v. State, 254 So.2d 406 (Fla.App.1971).

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>
     This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
     Continental Information Systems Corporation as of and for the nine months
     ended February 28, 2001. (In thousands, except per share amounts)

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    May-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                         Feb-28-2001
<CASH>                               3,542
<SECURITIES>                         000
<RECEIVABLES>                        2,906
<ALLOWANCES>                         301
<INVENTORY>                          000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     6,742
<PP&E>                               488
<DEPRECIATION>                       302
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       11,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                417
<BONDS>                              000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                000
<PREFERRED>                          000
<COMMON>                             71
<OTHER-SE>                           35,129
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         11,587
<SALES>                              550
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     1,051
<CGS>                                541
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        4,068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (1,717)
<INCOME-TAX>                         000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (3,017)
<DISCONTINUED>                       1,300
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      000
<CHANGES>                            000
<NET-INCOME>                         (1,717)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (.27)


</TABLE>
ALM AGENDA 

Joint Air Resources Board - Federal Land Managers Meeting 

January 13, 2016 

1:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. 

Cal EPA, 1001 I Street, Room 620 

Sacramento, CA 

Conference Call Number: 

Password: 

Agenda Items:

Item Leader Time 

Introductions/Review of Agenda Karen Magliano, CARB, Jerry Bird, 

USFS 

1:00 – 1:10 

Drought tree mortality task force Karen Magliano, CARB 1:10 – 1:35 

 SJVAPCD recommendations to promote more Prescribed Fire Shawn Ferreria, SJVAPCD 1:35 – 2:00 

 Sequoia NF / Inyo / Mono citizen and local politicians meeting Kevin Elliot, USFS Sequoia 2:00 – 2:15 

Exceptional Events Rule Update Meredith Kurpius, EPA 2:15 – 2:30 

Development Guide for Exceptional Events Related to Fire Trent Procter, USFS 2:30 – 2:45 

Air Resource Advisor Review - Wildfire Coordination in California Pete Lahm, USFS 2:45 – 3:00 

Regional Haze Update Tina Suarez-Murias, CARB 3:00 – 3:05 

 PFIRS Update Jason Branz,,CARB 3:05 – 3:10 

Review of Last Season – Wildfires or Prescribed fires – What worked 

and didn’t 

All 3:10 – 3:15 

Outlook for this season – Fire potential and highest risk areas All 3:15- 3:20 

Discuss any action items or agenda topics for next meeting Karen Magliano, CARB, Jerry Bird, 

USFS 

3:20 – 3:30
#### Bessie Mae McGUIRE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1170.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 18, 1974.

*272Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Norman J. Kapner, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

This is an appeal from convictions of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. The error complained of below has to do with the court’s failure to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses, and to direct a verdict due to insufficiency of the evidence. The first point was not properly preserved for appellate review, and the court’s defalcation, if such it be, was induced by counsel for the defendant.

The main thrust of appellant’s second point is that the evidence of guilt was circumstantial and it was consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We agree.

The evidence presented to the jury showed that appellant’s fourteen year old son asked her to drive him over to the Lutheran Church to pick up a lawnmower which he had bought. The boy had worked at the church property on previous occasions. He told his mother he had been instructed to break the lock on the shed because the key had been lost. Appellant drove her son to the church property in her station wagon about 11:00 a. m., he broke the lock, pushed the lawnmower into the car and they departed.

The state called the son as a state’s witness and he testified that his mother had asked him if he “was sure he was supposed to do this”. When he broke the lock, the son testified she said: “You know it’s wrong”. But the son as a state’s witness unequivocally testified that his mother did not know he was stealing the mower. Appellant’s daughter also testified that the son told her either that he had bought the mower or it was given to him, she wasn’t sure which it was.

Finally, the evidence showed that appellant and son went to the church property at 11:00 a. m.; there were people at and around the church, not far from the shed in question. There was nothing surreptitious about the circumstan<'- of picking up the mower. Thus, it is apparent that the proof of intent to commit the crimes in question is circumstantial. In such a case the evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt of the accused. Williams v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 446; Lockett v. State, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 253. It is our view that although the evidence may raise a suspicion of appellant’s guilt, it certainly cannot be said to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to discharge the appellant.

Reversed.

OWEN, C. J., and JOHNSON, CLARENCE T., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65263-65264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32382]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Intent To File An Application For A Subsequent License

December 5, 1997.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been 
filed

[[Page 65264]]

with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Notice of Intent to File An Application For 
a Subsequent License.
    b. Project No.: 6059.
    c. Date filed: November 24, 1997.
    d. Submitted By: Hydro Development Group, Inc., current licensee.
    e. Name of Project: Fowler #17 Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Oswegatchie River in St. Lawrence County, New 
York.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 16.19 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Effective date of current license: April 1, 1962.
    i. Expiration date of current license September 30, 2002.  
    j. The project consists of: (1) Three concrete dam sections 
spanning the river and connecting two small islands, comprising; (a) a 
75-foot-long, 25-foot-high dam equipped with 10-inch-high flashboards; 
(b) a 192-foot-long, 2-foot-high dam equipped with 22-inch-high 
flashboards; (c) a 154-foot-long, 15-foot-high dam equipped with 17-
inch-high flashboards; (2) a 3-acre reservoir with a normal water 
surface elevation of 542.0 feet msl; (3) a 55-foot-long, 24-foot-wide, 
20-foot-deep flume; (4) a powerhouse containing three generating units 
with a total installed capacity of 900 kW; (5) 450-foot-long 
transmission line; and (6) Appurtenant facilities.  
    k. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.7, information the project is Available 
at: Hydro Development Group, Inc., c/o CHI Energy Inc., P.O. Box 58, 
Route 12F, Airport Road, Dexter, NY 13634, (315) 639-6700.  
    l. FERC contact: Tom Dean (202) 219-2778.
    m. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.9 and 16.20 each application for a new or 
subsequent license and any competing license applications must be filed 
with the Commission on least 24 months prior to the expiration of the 
existing license. All applications for license for this project must be 
filed by September 30, 2000.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32382 Filed 12-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Deborah J. Adler, certify that:
1.     Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of ML Life InsuranceCompany of New York;
2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this annual report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Dated:March 28, 2006    /s/ DEBORAH J. ADLER
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134553 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134553 

 COA: 267299 

Oakland CC: 2004-195538-FC 

GREG ALLEN WINER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2007 

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. 

p1022 

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. 

October 29, 2007 

 Clerk
<PAGE>
<PAGE> 18

                                                             Exhibit 12

<TABLE>
           AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                (Unaudited)


<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months Ended  
                                                        March 31,      
                                                   1997          1996  
                                                 (dollars in thousands)
<S>                                              <C>           <C>
Earnings:

  Income before provision for income   
    taxes                                        $ 66,214      $ 47,428 
  Interest expense (including $12,447 
    for 1997 to fund assets held for
    sale)                                         122,309       123,876 
  Implicit interest in rents                        3,498         3,767

Total earnings                                   $192,021      $175,071

Fixed charges:

  Interest expense (including $12,447 
    for 1997 to fund assets held for
    sale)                                        $122,309      $123,876 
  Implicit interest in rents                        3,498         3,767

Total fixed charges                              $125,807      $127,643


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   1.53          1.37
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
#### BEHRING CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. David ROBINSON, claimant, et al., Respondents.

No. 43950.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 12, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

The undersigned certifypursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:

 
| i.  |   | The  accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,  2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ii. |   | The  information contained in the accompanying Report fairly presents, in all  material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the  Company.                              |

 

 
| Very  truly yours,      |
|-------------------------|
|                    |
|                    |
| Edward  R. Cameron      |
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/Edward  R. Cameron   |   |
| President               |
|                    |
|                    |
| Linda  A. Koenig        |
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/Linda  A. Koenig     |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |
|                    |
| Date  March 24, 2006    |

 

A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----