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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                           4,921
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,090
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     78,672
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               211,779
<PP&E>                                         386,284
<DEPRECIATION>                                 133,078
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 553,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          135,128
<BONDS>                                        217,146
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,207
<OTHER-SE>                                     160,128
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   553,748
<SALES>                                        437,221
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               437,221
<CGS>                                          366,665
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  366,665
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,221
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,506
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,715
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,715
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.59
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3802]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[CA-350-1020-00]


Revised Notice of Intent To Prepare Land Use Plan Amendment and 
Associated Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Eagle 
Lake Resource Area, California.

ACTION: Revision to Notice of Intent published November 28, 1994.

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

SUMMARY: The Notice of Intent to Prepare a Land Use Plan Amendment and 
Environmental Impact Statement for three Land Use plans was published 
on pages 60822--60823 in the November 28, 1994 Federal Register. The 
planning process to date included scoping, public meetings and 
development of an Analysis of the Management Situation. On October 2, 
1995 the Susanville District was formally dissolved, and the new 
organization is structured to have the Resource Area Managers report 
directly to the State Director. Therefore, this revision to the Notice 
of Intent is specifically for the Cal-Neva Management Framework Plan of 
1982.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Scoping commenced on November 28, 1994 with the 
publication of the original Notice of Intent in the Federal Register. 
Public meetings were held on January 10, 1995 in Sacramento, 
California; January 11, 1995 in Reno, Nevada; January 12, 1995 in 
Susanville, California; and January 13, 1995 in Alturas, California. 
All comments received since scoping commenced and during the public 
meetings are being considered in this process. A new scoping period is 
not being started.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR RELATED DOCUMENTS CONTACT: Linda Hansen, 
Area Manager, Eagle Lake Resource Area, 2950 Riverside Drive, 
Susanville, California 96130. Telephone: (916) 257-0456.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Cal-Neva Management Framework Plan is in 
the area of the Northwest Great Basin in Northern Washoe County, Nevada 
and Eastern Lassen County, California and is locally known as the East 
Lassen Area. The scoping, public participation and Analysis of the 
Management Situation that has been completed covers the whole of the 
East Lassen Area which is in the management responsibility of three 
different resource areas. These are the Alturas Resource Area, the 
Surprise Resource Area and the Eagle Lake Resource Area, all of which 
comprised the old Susanville District. This draft plan amendment for 
the Cal-Neva Management Framework Plan portion of the East Lassen area 
is scheduled for completion in early June, 1997.

    Dated: February 5, 1997.
Linda Hansen,
Area Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-3802 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
EXHIBIT 23(B)
                                                                   -------------






                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors and Shareholder
Insilco Technologies, Inc.:


We consent to the inclusion in Form 10-K of Insilco Technologies, Inc. of our
report dated February 2, 2001, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of
Insilco Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholder's deficit, and cash
flows for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related
consolidated financial statement schedule.

/S/ KPMG LLP

Columbus, Ohio
April 1, 2002
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,****as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
In connection with the Form 10-Q of DeanHolding Company (the “Company”) for the quarter endedJune 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Gregg Engles, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and the information contained in the Report fairlypresents in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
 /s/ GREGG ENGLES      Gregg Engles     *Chief Executive Officer*
Date: August 13, 2003
     A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided toDean Holding Company and will be retained by Dean HoldingCompany and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 68292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34223]


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

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m. (EST) January 12, 1998.

PLACE: 4th Floor, Conference Room 4506, 1250 H Street, NW., Washington, 
DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

1. Approval of the minutes of the December 8, 1997, Board member 
meeting.
2. Thrift Savings Plan activity report by the Executive Director.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, 
Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: December 29, 1997.
Roger W. Mehle,
Executive Director, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 97-34223 Filed 12-29-97; 3:10 pm]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-M
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 24, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00917-CR

HECTOR GIAGNOCOVO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1599067

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction signed May 10, 2022. No 

timely motion for new trial was filed. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was 

due by June 9, 2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1).

A court of appeals may grant an extension of time if, within 15 days after the 

deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the party files (a) the notice of appeal in the 

trial court, and (b) a motion for extension of time in the court of appeals. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 26.3; see also Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(2) (governing motion for extension 
2

of time to file notice of appeal). The fifteenth day after June 9, 2022, was June 24, 

2022. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on December 9, 2022, a date that is not 

within 15 days of the due date.

A notice of appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 26 is essential to vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction. 

Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). When a notice of 

appeal is not filed within the 15-day period, the court of appeals can take no action 

other than to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id.

On December 20, 2022, the parties were notified that the court may dismiss 

the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant demonstrated that the court has 

jurisdiction. Appellant’s response does not demonstrate this court has jurisdiction.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
----

----

EXHIBIT(32)(a)

| (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:      October 28, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Vinod M. Khilnani                           |   |
|                        |   | Vinod      M. Khilnani                               |   |
|                        |   | Chairman,      President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                        |   |                                                 |   |
#### Richard H. SCHWEITZER, III, et al., Petitioners, v. The CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Florida, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 43964.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 12, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Cubic Corporation (the “Corporation”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,William W. Boyle, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCorporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to myknowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/  W. W. Boyle                                    |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| W.  W. Boyle                                        |   |
| Senior  Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                                |   |
| Date:  May 5, 2009                             |   |

 

----
#### Dr. Jose DURAN, Petitioner, v. Janet V. McPHERSON and Alexander McPherson, her husband, Respondents. Dr. Thomas J. KIERNAN, Petitioner, v. Janet V. McPHERSON and Alexander McPherson, her husband, Respondents. JOHN F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., a Florida non-profit corporation, Petitioner, v. Janet V. McPHERSON and Alexander McPherson, her husband, Respondents.

Nos. 69-790, 69-828, 69-829.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 6, 1970.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1970.

Errol S. Cornell, of Cornell & Lanza, Miami, for petitioner Duran.

James E. Tribble, of Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miami, for petitioner Kiernan.

Larry Klein, of Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, McKeown & Dell, West Palm Beach, for petitioner Hospital.

Robert Orseck, of Podhurst & Orseck, and Spence, Payne & Masington, Miami, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We hold that the principles announced in Shingleton v. Bussey, Fla.1969, 223 So. 2d 713, are applicable to professional liability insurance. The plaintiffs in a suit against the insured are entitled to learn by discovery of the existence of any coverage and its extent. Beta Eta House Corporation, Inc. v. Gregory, First District Court of Appeal, 230 So.2d 495, opinion filed January 20, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

WALDEN and McCAIN, JJ„ and ADAMS, ALTO, Associate Judge, concur.
#### Melvin B. FRUMKES, Appellant, v. Natalie FRUMKES, Appellee.

Nos. 76-1150 and 76-1151.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 13, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 29, 1977.

*824Norman K. Schwarz, Abbott, Prumkes & Alhadeff, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Juan P. Loumiet, Coral Gables, for appel-lee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ.

HUBBART, Judge.

This is an appeal from a trial court order denying a petition for modification of child support filed by a husband in a divorce action. The husband [Melvyn Prumkes, the appellant] has custody and sole support of the parties’ minor children by virtue of a 1966 divorce decree which he now seeks to modify by requiring the wife [Natalie Frumkes, the appellee] to contribute some support for their children.

To be entitled to a modification of child support established by a divorce or marriage dissolution decree, it is incumbent upon the moving party to establish a change in financial circumstances occurring subsequent to the final judgment in the ability of either party to provide support, or in the children’s needs. The rule obtains as to any divorce or marriage dissolution decree whether entered before or after the 1971 no-fault divorce act [Chapter 61, Florida Statutes (1975)]. Sections 61.13, 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975); *Birge*v. *Simpson,*280 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); *Cheves v. Cheves,*269 So.2d 414 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972); *Mazzula v. Mazzula,*256 So.2d 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); *Willis v. Willis,*254 So.2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); *Bullard v. Bullard,*195 So.2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).

In the instant case, the trial court found no substantial change in circumstances and denied the petition for modification. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in so ruling. The financial situation of the husband has considerably improved, not deteriorated since the date of the divorce decree. The needs of the children have not substantially increased; indeed, one of the parties’ three minor children has reached majority and is no longer being supported by the husband. Finally, there has been no substantial change in the wife’s financial circumstances although she has remarried and with her new husband is operating a very marginal business. In sum, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in this matter as it is vested, and properly so, with a broad discretion to set child support payments and modify same in a divorce or marriage dissolution action.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 5, 2012

d0227 

# Order

March 5, 2012

144510 & (26)(27)(28)

HARVEY GROESBECK, Individually, and as Guardian of LORETTA GROESBECK, a protected person, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144510 COA: 307069 Macomb CC: 2 009-003523-NO HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, d/b/a HENRY FORD BI-COUNTY HOSPITAL, d/b/a HENRY FORD MACOMB HOSPITAL, d/b/a THE DETROI T OSTEOPATHIC HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2012 an d December 15, 2011 orders of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be review ed by this Court. The motion for stay and motion for peremptory reversal are DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
<MULTIPLIER>                          1
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                          NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                697,917
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,972,594
<ALLOWANCES>                          66,558
<INVENTORY>                           56,753,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      60,482,988
<PP&E>                                29,590,166
<DEPRECIATION>                        16,315,210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        78,881,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 52,748,704
<BONDS>                               4,750,000
<COMMON>                              1,544,462
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0 
<OTHER-SE>                            11,721,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          78,881,955
<SALES>                               134,743,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      135,158,510
<CGS>                                 91,852,634
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      45,456,624  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    2,354,251
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (4,504,999)
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                          (4,504,999)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (2.93)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (2.93)





</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joshua M. BURSH, II.

No. 61163.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 11, 1978.

In re: Joshua M. Bursh, II, applying for supervisory writ of certiorari. Parish of Lincoln.

Writ denied.
Exhibit 18











October 11, 1996



To the Board of Directors of
Curtice-Burns Foods, Inc. and
Pro-Fac Cooperative, Inc.

Dear Directors:

We have been  furnished  with a copy of the Form 10-Q for  Curtice-Burns  Foods,
Inc., a wholly-owned  subsidiary of Pro-Fac  Cooperative,  Inc., for the quarter
ended  September  28, 1996.  NOTE 1 therein  describes a change in the method of
accounting for spare parts  inventory,  whereby spare parts  previously  charged
directly to expense will be  capitalized  until placed in service.  It should be
understood  that the  preferability  of one acceptable  method of accounting for
spare parts over another has not been addressed in any authoritative  accounting
literature,  and in arriving at our opinion  expressed  below, we have relied on
the business  planning and judgment of  management.  Based upon our  discussions
with  management  and the stated  reasons for the change,  we believe  that such
change  represents,  in  your  circumstances,   the  adoption  of  a  preferable
alternative  accounting  principle for spare parts in conformity with Accounting
Principles Board Opinion No. 20.

We have not  made an  audit  in  accordance  with  generally  accepted  auditing
standards of the  financial  statements  of  Curtice-Burns  Foods,  Inc. for the
three-month  period ended  September  28, 1996 and,  accordingly,  we express no
opinion thereon or on the financial  information  files as part of the Form 10-Q
of which this letter is to be an exhibit.

Yours very truly,



/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP
#### Booker T. Washington BARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-696.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 23, 1970.

Booker T. Washington Barker, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant has filed his notice of appeal appealing an order of the trial court denying his motion under Criminal Procedure Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A. The sole point raised by appellant’s motion is that he was charged with a capital offense and admits that he was represented at all times by an assistant public defender; however, he contends that the public defender or his assistants are not authorized under the law to represent a defendant charged with a capital offense.

This contention, of course, is completely devoid of any merit and is so untenable as to make this appeal frivolous.

For the foregoing reason the appeal is dismissed ex mero motu.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.