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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000025757
<NAME> CROMPTON & KNOWLES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                          18,236
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  290,501
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,804
<INVENTORY>                                    373,822
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               771,740
<PP&E>                                         483,773
<DEPRECIATION>                                 386,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,661,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          376,585
<BONDS>                                      1,025,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,733
<OTHER-SE>                                    (81,685)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,661,339
<SALES>                                        473,873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               473,873
<CGS>                                          304,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  403,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   198
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   493
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,953
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,941
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,330
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,611
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,611
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
#### J. C. BOYER v. Joe E. JOHNSON et al.

No. 61095.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1978.

In re: J. C. Boyer applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Jackson Parish. 350 So.2d 961.

GRANTED.

*1039It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the ease; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33274]



[[Page 66859]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT98-7-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Filing

December 16, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 12, 1997, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised 
tariff sheets to become effective December 12, 1997:

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 775
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 776
Tenth Revised Sheet No. 777
Eleventh Revised Sheet No. 825
Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 829
Sixteenth Revised Sheet No. 830
Nineteenth Revised Sheet No. 831
Twenty-first Revised Sheet No. 832
Twenty-first Revised Sheet No. 833

    Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets are being 
filed simply to update its Master Receipt/Delivery Point List.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33274 Filed 12-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### TOM O’RYAN ADVERTISING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Arnold F. SELTZER, d/b/a Jackson Outdoor Advertising, Appellee.

No. 72-884.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 13, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
* Pursuant to 5TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 22, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50827 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus J. C. STOCKTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:06-CR-55-1

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * J. C. Stockton, Jr., appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. He argues for the first time on appeal that the guidelines sentence imposed was unreasonable because the district court failed to take into account the disparate way that crack cocaine and powder cocaine are treated by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He also argues forNo. 06-50827 -2- the first time on appeal that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise that issue at sentencing. Stockton has not demonstrated that the district court plainly erred by imposing an unreasonable sentence. See United
States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 518-19, 520 (5th Cir. 2005). We have previously rejected arguments challenging the disparity in the penalties for offenses involving powder and crack cocaine, which are mandated by Congress. See , e.g. , United States v. Wilson , 77 F.3d 105, 112 (5th Cir. 1996). We decline to review Stockton’s ineffective assistance claim in this direct appeal. See United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.02

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Pam Kandaris-Cha, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Uintah Mountain Copper Company on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Uintah Mountain Copper Company

By:            /s/
   -----------------------------
Name: Pam Kandaris-Cha
Title:   Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant and will be
retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

September 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Rehearing No. 539 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

131517 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

IN RE CERTIFIED QUESTION FROM 

THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF 

APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS, 

_________________________________________/ 

GLENN MILLER, ESTATE OF CAROLYN 

MILLER, SHAWN DEAN, JOHN ROLAND, 

and ALMA ROLAND,

Plaintiffs, 

v SC: 131517 

 CA-14: 14-05-00026-CV 

239th DC: 15077*JG01 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

In this cause, a motion for rehearing is considered, and it is DENIED. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant rehearing. 

WEAVER, J., dissents and states as follows: 

I dissent from this Court’s decision to deny plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

I would grant the motion for reconsideration and vacate the Court’s decision answering a 

certified question from the Fourteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas. 

This Court’s decision to answer the certified question in this case should be 

vacated because MCR 7.305(B), the Michigan court rule allowing the Court to answer 

certified questions from other courts, goes beyond this court’s constitutional authority to 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

 

2 

answer certified questions.1

 Further, the majority’s decision to answer the certified 

question in this case is unprecedented and unnecessary.2 

1

 See In re Certified Question (Miller v Ford Motor Co), 479 Mich 498, 548 (2007) 

(Weaver, J., dissenting); see also Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.305, 462 Mich 1208 

(2000) (Weaver, J., dissenting); In re Certified Question (Wayne Co v Philip Morris Inc), 

622 NW2d 518 (Mich, 2001) (Weaver, J., dissenting); In re Certified Question (Kenneth 

Henes Special Projects Procurement, Marketing & Consulting Corp v Continental 

Biomass Industries, Inc), 468 Mich 109, 134 (2003) (Weaver, J., concurring in the result 

only); In re Certified Questions (Melson v Prime Ins Syndicate, Inc), 472 Mich 1225 

(2005) (Weaver, J., concurring); In re Certified Question (Bankey v Storer Broadcasting 

Co), 432 Mich 438, 467-471 (1989) (opinion by Levin, J.). 

2

 See In re Certified Question (Miller v Ford Motor Co), supra at 553 (2007) (Weaver, J., 

dissenting); see also Berg, Cherry picking: In deciding a certified question from Texas, 

the MSC took the law it liked, and left the rest, Michigan Lawyers Weekly, August 20, 

2007, p 1 ; 21 Mich L W 1129; 

<http://www.milawyersweekly.com/subscriber/archives_FTS.cfm?page=mi/07/8200770. 

htm&recID=414432&QueryText=asbestos>(accessed September 17, 2007). 

t0925 

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. 

September 28, 2007 

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-26-1998
<CASH>                                             194
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,211<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,116    
<INVENTORY>                                     11,850
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,556
<PP&E>                                         102,607
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,060
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,750
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,278<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,210
<SALES>                                         39,301
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,301
<CGS>                                           29,963
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,965
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    38
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                       780
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,420
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,420
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43
<FN>
<F1>ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE ARE NET OF ALLOWANCES
<F2>OTHER SE INCLUDES TREASURY STOCK
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Darlin E. NOTHNAGEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-167.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 25, 1973.

Robert P. Miller, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The record on appeal and briefs of counsel herein having been fully considered, and it appearing therefrom that appellant has failed to demonstrate that the judgment appealed is erroneous, the said judgment is therefore affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ„ concur.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORPORATION, DOMAINE ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

ASUS COMPUTER INTERN ATIONAL, ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC., Defendants

- Appellees

TPV TECHNOLOGY LIMIT ED, TOP VICTORY

INTERNATIONAL LIMITE D, TOP VICTORY ELECTRONICS (FUJIAN) CO. LTD., TOP VICTOR Y ELECTRONICS (TAIWAN) CO. , LTD., TPV ELECTRONICS (FUJIAN) CO. LTD., TPV INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC. , ENVISION PERIPHERALS, INC.,

Defendants

- Appellees

ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORA TION, Defendants

- Appellees

AOC INTERNATIONAL, Defendant

______________________
2015

- 1125,

- 1126,

- 1127

______________________Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in No. 9:12

- cv

- 80694

- PAS, 9:12

- cv

- 80697

- PAS, 9:12

- cv

- 80701

- PAS, Judge Patricia A. Seitz.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
G REGORY N. S TILLMAN , Hunton & Williams LLP, No rfolk, VA, argued for plaintiff s- appellants. Also represen ted by O ZZIE F ARRES , M ICHAEL A L FRED O’S HEA , Washington, DC.

J ONATHAN H ACKER , O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Was hington, DC, argued for all defendants

- appellees. Defen dants

- appellees TPV Technology Limited, Top Victory International Limited, et al., also represented by M ARK A. S AMUELS , B RIAN B ERLINER , V ISION W INTER , Los Angeles, CA.

J OSHUA M. M ASUR , Turner Boyd LLP, Redwood City, CA, for def endants

- appellees Asus Computer Internatio nal, Asustek Computer Inc. Also represented by Z HUANJIA G U

.
C RAIG R. K AUFMAN , TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, Redwood City , CA, for defendants

- appellees Acer, Inc., Acer America Corporation. Also repre sented by M ICH AEL C HAOCHA T ING

.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :3

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN , O’M ALLEY , and C HEN , Circuit Judges ).
AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 17, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             169
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1836
<ALLOWANCES>                                        13
<INVENTORY>                                       1333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3527
<PP&E>                                            5056
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1287
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3377
<BONDS>                                           4041
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        521
<COMMON>                                           779
<OTHER-SE>                                        2371
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12536
<SALES>                                           6367
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  6367
<CGS>                                             5169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5559
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (36)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    367
<INCOME-TAX>                                       108
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                245
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       245
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.89
        

</TABLE>
#### Floyd Benjamin ATHOW and Esther S. Athow, Appellants, v. Donald W. CLEVENGER and Paul Robert San Miguel, Appellees.

No. R-94.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 14, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1** **CERTIFICATION**     I, E. Randall Chestnut, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on    Form 10-Q    for the period ended December 30, 2007 of Crown Crafts,    Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this 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 report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 we 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 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 most recent fiscal quarter    (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an    annual report) 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 officers 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 function):     (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/  E.    Randall Chestnut
DBA SYSTEMS, INC.
EXHIBIT INDEX
										    
                                                        Page No.

Exhibit 11 - Computation of earnings per share		            	10
<PAGE>
9

EXHIBIT 11

DBA SYSTEMS, INC.
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(in thousands, except per share information)
(Unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                          	Three Months Ending Sept. 30,
                                              	1995             1994
<S>                                            <C>              <C>
Net income 	(A)                               	$259            	$387



Weighted average shares outstanding	          	4,434           	4,355
Incremental shares - stock options		              75	              21
Subtotal	(B)                                  	4,509	           4,376
Incremental shares - stock options		             	                 	          
Total	(C)                                     	4,509           	4,376

Net earnings per common and common
	equivalent share	(A/B)                        	$.06            	$.09

Net earnings per common share, assuming
 full dilution (A/C)                           	$.06            	$.09
</TABLE>
255 La. 791

#### John L. SWOPE et al. v. ST. MARY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD.

No. 50450.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 30, 1970.

In re: John L. Swope, et al. applying for writs of certiorari and mandamus.

Writ granted.

FOURNET, C. J., McCALEB and HAMLIN, JJ., are of the opinion that the application should be denied for the reasons hereto attached.

FOURNET, C. J., and McCALEB and HAMLIN, JJ.,

dissenting.

This Court is without jurisdiction to grant this application for the reason that the litigation has been removed to the federal court and that court, whether rightly or wrongly, has upheld its jurisdiction. Should this Court order the district judge to proceed in the matter, it would place the judge in an untenable, in fact impossible, position in view of the orders of the federal judge. Since the federal court has seized jurisdiction of the case, the correctness of the removal order can only be litigated in a federal tribunal. We cannot conceive how any order this Court might render could effectuate an ouster of the federal jurisdiction. To reason otherwise is to create an insurmountable conflict between state and federal jurisdiction contrary to the letter and spirit of Title 28, U.S.C.A. Section 1446 (e).
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2338 

To require the commanding general of the District of Columbia National 

Guard to reside in the District of Columbia. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 1, 2021 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard to reside in the District of Columbia. 

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 ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 National Guard Commanding General Residency Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2338 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT THE COMMANDING GENERAL 

2 OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NATIONAL 

3 GUARD RESIDE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUM4 BIA. 

5 (a) REQUIREMENT.—The commanding general of the 

6 District of Columbia National Guard shall reside in the 

7 District of Columbia. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (a) shall take ef9 fect on the day that is one year after the date of the enact10 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS