alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Financial Literacy and Education Commission Public Meeting 

February 14, 2012

10:30 am – 12:00 pm

U.S. Department of the Treasury – Cash Room

Welcome

Cyrus Amir-Mokri, Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions, U.S. Department of the Treasury 

Richard Cordray, Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Financial Education Approaches: Smart Disclosures

Moderator: Chris Vein, Deputy Chief Technology Officer, Government Innovation, 

 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Panel: Michael L. Davis, Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Employee Benefits Security Administration, US Department of Labor

Matt Fellowes, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Hello Wallet

Sophie Raseman, US Department of the Treasury, and Co-Chair, 

Smart Disclosure Task Force

Financial Literacy and Education Commission Updates 

General Updates: Louisa Quittman

 Director, Office of Financial Education

 U.S. Department of the Treasury

 

Core Competencies and Luke Reynolds, Chief, Outreach and Program Development Section 

Financial Access: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Research and Evaluation: Jeanne Hogarth

Program Manager, Consumer Education and Research Section 

 Division of Consumer and Community Affairs

Federal Reserve Board of Governors

National Strategy: Karen Bellesi, Special Advisor for Community Affairs

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Conclusion

Next meeting tentatively scheduled for May 22.
#### Santos HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-887.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 4, 1973.

Santos Hernandez, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3688]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 62 FR 5005, 
February 3, 1997.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: 9:00 a.m. Thursday, 
February 6, 1996.

CHANGE IN THE MEETING: The following topic was added to the open 
portion of the meeting:

 Designation of Federal Home Loan Bank Vice Chairs

    The Board determined that agency business required its 
consideration of this matter on less than 7 days notice to the public 
and that no earlier notice of this changes in the subject matter of the 
meeting was possible.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the 
Board, (202) 408-2837.
Rita I. Fair,
Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 97-3688 Filed 2-10-97; 3:42 pm]
BILLING CODE 6725-01-M
#### NORTH BEACH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, for itself and all persons similarly situated, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW SMYRNA BEACH, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. Q-472.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 12, 1973.

John E. Hankal, of Coble, Stewart & Mc-Kinnon, Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Leon G. Van Wert, Daytona Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and 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 appealed from herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[ID-933-1430-01; IDI-32319]


Public Land Order No. 7306; Withdrawal of National Forest System 
Lands for Howell Canyon Recreation Complex; Idaho

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public land order.

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

SUMMARY: This order withdraws 3,805.87 acres of National Forest System 
lands from mining for a period of 20 years for the Forest Service to 
protect the Howell Canyon Recreation Complex. The lands have been and 
will remain open to surface entry and mineral leasing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 2, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry R. Lievsay, BLM Idaho State 
Office, 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709, 208-373-3864.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:
    1. Subject to valid existing rights, the following described 
National Forest System lands are hereby withdrawn from the United 
States mining laws (30 U.S.C. Ch. 2 (1994)), but not from the general 
land laws or mineral leasing laws, to protect the Howell Canyon 
Recreation Complex:

Boise Meridian

T. 12 S., R. 24 E.,
    sec. 36, SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, W\1/2\SW\1/4\, and S\1/2\SE\1/4\.
T. 12 S., R. 25 E.,
    sec. 31, lot 4, NE\1/4\NE\1/4\, SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, W\1/2\SE\1/
4\NE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SW\1/4\, and SE\1/4\;
    sec. 32, S\1/2\SE\1/4\SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, and N\1/
2\SW\1/4\.
T. 13 S., R. 24 E.,
    sec. 1, N\1/2\ lot 1, lots 2 to 4 inclusive, S\1/2\NW\1/4\ and 
SW\1/4\;
    sec. 2;
    sec. 3, lots 1 to 4 inclusive, S\1/2\N\1/2\, N\1/2\S\1/2\, SW\1/
4\SW\1/4\, and SE\1/4\SW\1/4\;
    sec. 4, lots 1 and 2, S\1/2\NE\1/4\ and S\1/2\;
    sec. 5, SE\1/4\;
    sec. 9, NE\1/4\, E\1/2\NW\1/4\, NW\1/4\NW\1/4\, NE\1/4\SW\1/4\, 
and N\1/2\SE\1/4\;
    sec. 10, W\1/2\NW\1/4\;
    sec. 11, NE\1/4\;
    sec. 12, NW\1/4\.
    The areas aggregate 3,805.87 acres in Cassia County.

    2. The withdrawal made by this order does not alter the 
applicability of those public land laws governing the use of the land 
under lease, license, or permit, or governing the disposal of their 
mineral or vegetative resources other than the mining laws.
    3. This withdrawal will expire 20 years from the effective date of 
this order unless, as a result of a review conducted before the 
expiration date pursuant to Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714(f) (1994), the Secretary 
determines that the withdrawal shall be extended.

    Dated: December 17, 1997.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 97-34205 Filed 12-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
**Exhibit 15**

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors and Shareholders

Cubic Corporation

Wehave reviewed the condensed consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation asof June 30, 2007, and the relatedcondensed consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the three andnine-month periods ended June 30, 2007 and 2006.  These financial statements are theresponsibility of the Company’s management.

Weconducted our reviews in accordance with standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally ofapplying analytical procedures, and making inquiries of persons responsible forfinancial and accounting matters.  It issubstantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with thestandards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), theobjective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financialstatements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Basedon our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should bemade to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above forthem to be in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Wehave previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet ofCubic Corporation as of September 30, 2006 and the related consolidated statementsof income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the year thenended (not presented herein) and in our report dated November 29, 2006, weexpressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. Inour opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensedconsolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2006, is fairly stated, in allmaterial respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which ithas been derived.
|                       | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|
|                  |
|                  |
| San Diego, California |
| July 27, 2007         |

 

----
EXHIBIT 23 (a)
                                                                  --------------







                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'
                        --------------------------------



The Board of Directors
Insilco Corporation:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos.
333-36523 and 333-51145 on Form S-4 of Insilco Corporation of our report dated
February 17, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Insilco
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999, and 1998, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholder's deficit, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1999, and the
related schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1999, annual report
on Form 10-K of Insilco Corporation.

KPMG LLP


Columbus, Ohio
March 24, 2000
#### Marvin ROBBINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Charles Marquis WARREN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 69-131, 69-175.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 13, 1970.

B. Paul Pettie, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James M. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the records and the briefs in this cause which is a consolidation of two separate appeals and on the basis *645of the briefs and the record it is our conclusion that the appellants have failed to make error appear. Accordingly, the judgment and sentence in each case is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                         341,909
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,198,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                   248,428
<INVENTORY>                                  5,012,237
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,455,038
<PP&E>                                       5,069,989
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,162,346
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,842,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,694,604
<BONDS>                                      1,850,626
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,299
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,284,145
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,842,674
<SALES>                                      3,091,724
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,091,724
<CGS>                                        2,140,087
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,140,087
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                16,392
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             157,810
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (621,505)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (621,505)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (621,505)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.47)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Daxor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date thereof (the Report), I, David Frankel, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

| |                               
| | ------------------------------
| | /s/ David Frankel             
| |                               
| |                               
| | David Frankel                 
| | Chief Financial Officer       
| | Principal Financial
  Officer 
| | Principal Accounting
  Officer
| | August 11, 2009               

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Daxor Corporation and will be retained by Daxor Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### Alphonso BELCHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-55.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 21, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Stephen 0. Rushing, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed. The order revoking probation, while indicating the appellant was to receive credit for time served, does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes. *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).

Remanded for correction of the sentence; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7110 

To authorize appropriations for highway-rail grade crossing improvement 

projects. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2020 

Mr. NEAL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To authorize appropriations for highway-rail grade crossing 

improvement projects. 

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 ‘‘Warren Cowles Grade 

5 Crossing Safety Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HIGH7 WAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING IMPROVEMENT 

8 PROJECTS. 

9 Section 22907 of title 49, United States Code, is 

10 amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7110 IH

1 (1) in subsection (c)(5), by inserting ‘‘, includ2 ing such a project for commuter rail and operators 

3 in high-ridership corridors’’ before the period at the 

4 end; and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(m) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 

8 22905(f), there are authorized to be appropriated 

9 for eligible projects described in subsection (c)(5) for 

10 commuter rail and operators in high-ridership cor11 ridors— 

12 ‘‘(A) for fiscal year 2021, $250,000,000; 

13 and 

14 ‘‘(B) for fiscal year 2022 and each fiscal 

15 year thereafter, the amount described in para16 graph (2). 

17 ‘‘(2) AMOUNT DESCRIBED.—The amount de18 scribed in this paragraph for a fiscal year is 

19 $250,000,000, adjusted to reflect the percentage (if 

20 any) of the increase in the average of the Consumer 

21 Price Index for the preceding 12-month period com22 pared to the Consumer Price Index for fiscal year 

23 2020. 

24 ‘‘(3) CONSUMER PRICE INDEX DEFINED.—In 

25 this subsection, the term ‘Consumer Price Index’ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7110 IH

1 means the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Con2 sumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

3 of the Department of Labor.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43262

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent
,

v.

DANIEL ALLEN BROWN

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 331

Filed: January 20, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. George A. Southworth , District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Daniel Allen Brown pled guilty to burglary . Idaho Code § 18

- 1401 . The district court

sentenced Brown to a unified term of five years with one and one

- half years determinate

, suspended the sentenc e, and placed Brown on probation for three years. Within a few months of

sentencing , Brown incurred additional criminal charges and Brown was required to serve

discretionary jail time on two occasions. Subsequently, Brown admitted to violating the terms of

the probation, and the district court revoked probation and then reinstated Brown on probation

for a period of three years. Several months later Brown again was required to serve discretionary

jail time. Subsequently, Brown admitted to viol ating some of the terms of his probation and the

district court again revoked his probation and reinstated his probation for eighteen months. A2

few days later Brown was again ordered to serve discretionary jail time and Brown was charged

with a third prob ation violation . Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court found

Brown in violation of his probation

, revoked probation

, ordered execution of Brown’s underlying

sentence, and retained jurisdiction. Following a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court

relinquished jurisdiction and ordered Brown’s sentence executed without reduction. Brown

asserts that the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction

. We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to

relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district

court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood , 102

Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (19 81); State v. Lee , 117 Idaho 203, 205

- 06, 786 P.2d 594, 596

-
97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the

information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that Brown

has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.

The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and ordering Brown’s underlying

sentence executed is affirmed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. §1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report of World Ventures Inc. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended October 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary B. Van Norman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



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

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



Date: April 23, 2008



| |  | /s/ Gary B. Van Norman                           
| |  | -------------------------------------------------
| |  | Name: Gary B. Van Norman                         
| |  | Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-16-00116-CV

LINDA LEWIS APPELLANT

V.

WAL-MART STORES INC. AND BEN AZIMI APPELLEES

------------ FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 048-271696-14

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------ On April 11, 2016, and April 25, 2016, we notified appella nt in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismis s this appeal unless the $205 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c ). Appellant has not paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 Because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of appellate procedure and th e Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2015, 2 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f). Appellant shall pay a ll costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ. DELIVERED: May 19, 2016

2 See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judi cial Panel on Multi-district Litigation , Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees).