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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,286
<SECURITIES>                                     3,915
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,176
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     65,398
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                84,648
<PP&E>                                          85,390
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,710
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 164,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,231
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           92,169
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,414)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   164,245
<SALES>                                        209,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               209,375
<CGS>                                          141,397
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 918
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,247
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,381
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,866
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,867
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23
        

</TABLE>
II 

Calendar No. 488 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7259 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 29, 2020 

Received; read the first time 

JUNE 30, 2020 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the Patents 

for Humanity Program to be transferable. 

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 ‘‘Patents for Humanity 

5 Program Improvement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TRANSFERABILITY OF ACCELERATION CERTIFI7 CATES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—A holder of an acceleration certifi9 cate issued pursuant to the Patents for Humanity Pro10 gram (established in the notice entitled ‘‘Humanitarian 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 7259 PCS

1 Awards Pilot Program’’, published at 77 Fed. Reg. 6544 

2 (February 8, 2012)), or any successor thereto, of the 

3 United States Patent and Trademark Office, may transfer 

4 (including by sale) the entitlement to such acceleration 

5 certificate to another person. 

6 (b) REQUIREMENT.—An acceleration certificate 

7 transferred under subsection (a) shall be subject to any 

8 other applicable limitations under the notice entitled ‘‘Hu9 manitarian Awards Pilot Program’’, published at 77 Fed. 

10 Reg. 6544 (February 8, 2012), or any successor thereto. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2020. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 488 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7259 

AN ACT 

Patents for Humanity Program to be transferable. 

To allow acceleration certificates awarded under the 

JUNE 30, 2020 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Charles Bernie KAISER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-959.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

 

FORM OF 906 CERTIFICATION

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 2, 2005 (the "Report") for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

David G. Whalen, the Chief Executive Officer and Kevin F. Mahoney, the Chief Financial Officer of A.T. Cross Company, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7193-7194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3863]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN 68-1-7308b; FRL-5678-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State implementation plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Indiana for the purpose of 
incorporating minor changes to existing regulations and accommodating 
recent revisions to the SIP by adding and updating regulations. The EPA 
made a finding of completeness in a letter dated November 25, 1994. 
This revision affects definitions in the General Provisions of the 
Indiana SIP (326 IAC 1-1, 1-2, 1-6), and the Permit Review Rules (326 
IAC 2-1). In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA 
is approving these actions as a direct final rule without prior 
proposal because EPA views these as noncontroversial actions and 
anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval 
is set forth in the direct final rule. If EPA receives

[[Page 7194]]

adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all 
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this notice. Any parties interested in commenting on this 
notice should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before March 20, 
1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments can be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch, United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AR-
18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State's submittal and EPA's analysis of it are 
available for inspection at: Regulation Development Section, Regulation 
Development Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alvin Choi, Environmental Engineer, 
Permits and Grants Section, Regulation Development Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3507.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: December 12, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-3863 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### Robert SHULER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1484.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 17, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Dr. David Howard ORLIN, Petitioner, v. Dr. John E. DALTON, as Chairman, Dr. Reuben P. Groom, as Secretary-Treasurer, and Drs. Francis F. Farver, J. M. Pepper, John A. Stuart and Hunter A. Brenker, as Members of the Florida State Board of Dentistry, Respondents.

No. N-28.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 18, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 1970.

Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Bennett, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

*289Robinson & Randle, Jacksonville, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied. See Pauline v. Lee, 147 So.2d 359 (Fla.App. 1962).

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
#### Dennis O’CONNOR, Petitioner, v. Mary Louise O’CONNOR, Respondent.

No. 43640.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 31, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 274 So.2d 546.

ROBERTS, Acting- C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7379 

To designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bend, 

Oregon, as the ‘‘Robert D. Maxwell Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2020 

Mr. WALDEN (for himself, Mr. SCHRADER, Ms. BONAMICI, Mr. DEFAZIO, and 

Mr. BLUMENAUER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

in Bend, Oregon, as the ‘‘Robert D. Maxwell Department 

of Veterans Affairs Clinic’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT D. MAXWELL DE4 PARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CLINIC. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The clinic of the Department of 

6 Veterans Affairs located at 2650 NE Courtney Drive, 

7 Bend, Oregon, shall after the date of the enactment of 

8 this Act be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert D. MaxVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:50 Jul 20, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7379.IH H7379

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7379 IH

1 well Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic’’ or the ‘‘Rob2 ert D. Maxwell VA Clinic’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCE.—Any reference in any law, regula4 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the clinic referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 

6 considered to be a reference to the Robert D. Maxwell De7 partment of Veterans Affairs Clinic. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Opinion issued November 1 9 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 15 - 00572 - CV

——————————— PROGRESSIVE COUNTY M UTUAL INSURANCE COMP ANY AND DONAL D JAMES WILKINS , Appella nt s/Cross - Appellees V. PREDISTELL ROBINSON AND MAENETTA ROBINSO N ,

Appell e e s/Cross - Appellants
On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2013 - 41593
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant s /Cross

- Appellees , Progressive County Mutual Insurance Company and Donald James Wilkins, have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal , stating the parties have settled. Appellees/ Cross

- Appellants, Predistell2

Robinson and Maenetta Robinson have also filed an unopposed motion to dismiss their cross

- appeal because the parties h ave settled. Appellants and Cross

Appellants move for entry of an opinion dismissing their appeals to effectuate their settlement agreement
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a). No opinion has issued. Accordingly, we grant the motion s and dismiss the appeal s . See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42. 1 (a), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of J ustices Higley, Huddle , and Lloyd
.
#### Milton McAFEE, Appellant, v. Lacy EVERETTE et al., Appellees.

No. 72-15.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 29, 1972.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; Hugh MacMillan, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 12-A


DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY





RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


(Dollars in
Thousands)





3 Months Ended March 31, 2002

Year Ended December 31,2001

2000

1999

1998

1997Income before extraordinary item

$
20,855

$
203,409

$
141,816

$
142,179

$
112,410

$
105,709Income taxes


14,601


141,810


81,510


95,321


72,276


72,155Fixed charges:Interest on long-term debt including amortization of discount, premium and expense


11,546


63,765


77,178


77,790


81,132


78,350Other interest


776


3,388


7,512


6,117


9,328


12,835Preferred dividend requirements of a subsidiary trust


1,422


5,687


5,687


5,687


5,688


5,687Total fixed charges


13,744


72,840


90,377


89,594


96,148


96,872Nonutility capitalized interest

















(208
)Earnings before extraordinary item, income taxes, and fixed charges

$
49,200

$
418,059

$
313,703

$
327,094

$
280,834

$
274,528Ratio of earnings to fixed charges


3.58


5.74


3.47


3.65


2.92


2.83





For purposes of computing the ratio, earnings are income before extraordinary
item plus income taxes


and fixed charges, less nonutility capitalized interest. Fixed charges consist of interest on long- and


short-term debt, amortization of debt discount, premium, and expense, dividends on preferred securities of a


subsidiary trust, plus the estimated interest component of rentals.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Charles RANKER, Petitioner, v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54361.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1974.

In re: Charles Ranker applying for Writ of Certiorari and Habeas Corpus.

Writ denied. Only one issue is new in this application. Others were raised in our docket Number 53,334. Issue of unconstitutionality of C.Cr.P. Art. 557 is without merit.
<PAGE>
 
                                                            Exhibit 24


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY


     KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the person whose signature appears
below constitutes and appoints Robert S. Hillas and Mark J. Maten, or either of
them, as his or her true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full
power of substitution and resubstitution, to do any and all acts, including the
execution of documents, which said attorneys, or either of them, may deem
necessary or advisable to enable Envirogen, Inc. (the "Company") to comply with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules and regulations
and requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in connection with
the filing under such Act of an annual report of the Company on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 1998, including the power and authority to sign in
the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in any and all capacities in which
the signature of the undersigned would be appropriate, such annual report and
any and all amendments thereto and generally to do and perform all things
necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as
the undersigned could do if personally present.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereto set his or her hand this
26th day of March, 1999.



 


                                         /s/ Robert F. Johnston
                                         ----------------------               
                                           Robert F. Johnston
 
                                      60
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 20-10225 

Conference Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Thomas Gerald O'Donnell, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:19-CR-560-1 

Before Dennis, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Thomas Gerald 

O’Donnell has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). O’Donnell has not filed a response. 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

May 18, 2021 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 20-10225 Document: 00515866237 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2021
No. 20-10225 

2 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 20-10225 Document: 00515866237 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2021
**EXHIBIT 15**

 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

Boardof Directors and Shareholders

CubicCorporation

 

 

Wehave reviewed the condensed consolidated balance sheet of Cubic Corporation asof June 30, 2006, and the related condensed consolidated statements of incomeand cash flows for the three-month and nine-month periods ended June 30, 2006and 2005. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’smanagement.

 

Weconducted our reviews in accordance with standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financialinformation consists principally of applying analytical procedures, and makinginquiries of persons responsible for financial 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, 2005 and the related consolidatedstatements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for theyear then ended (not presented herein) and in our report dated December 5,2005, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financialstatements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanyingcondensed consolidated balance sheet at September 30, 2005, is fairly stated,in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet fromwhich it has been derived.

 

 
|                  | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP |   |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                  |
|                  |
| San Diego, California |
| July 28, 2006         |

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8, No. 33-54242, Form S-8, No. 33-54246. Form S-8, No. 33-54244, Form
S-8, No. 33-54248, Form S-8, No. 33-54252, Form S-8, No. 33-54250, Form S-8,
No. 33-89052, and Form S-3, No. 33-95418) pertaining to the Acordia Retirement
Savings Plan, the Acordia, Inc. 1992 Stock Compensation Plan, the Acordia 1989
Equity Incentive Plan, the Acordia, Inc. Directors Stock Compensation Plan,
the Acordia, Inc. Subsidiary Officers Stock Plan, the Acordia, Inc. Subsidiary
Directors Stock Plan, the Acordia, Inc. Producers' Deferred Compensation and
Equity Plan and the Associated Group 401K Long Term Savings Investment Plan,
respectively and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated January 31,
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of
Acordia, Inc. included in Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Indianapolis, Indiana
March 25, 1997
 
                                      45
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Kyle Dean Kuykendall v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 00 930

- CR

Trial court case number: B 1 5

- 6 84

Trial court: 1 98 th District Court of Kerr County 1

Without agreed recommendations from the State, appellant, Kyle Dean Kuykendall

, pleaded guilty to t he felony offenses of failure to appear. The trial court found appellant guilty, assessed his punishment at confinement for ten years, and certified that appellant has the right to appeal. A clerk’s record was filed on September 24, 2018; and supplemental cl erk’s records were filed on October 2 , 2018, and November 28, 2018. A reporter’s record was filed on October 12, 2018

. Accordingly, a ppellant’s brief is due to be filed in th is appeal no later than 30 days from the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a), (d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_

/s/ Russell Lloyd

_______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ December 4, 2018

____________________

1 Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas transferred the appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas

. See Misc.

Docket No. 1 8

- 91 30 (Tex. Sept. 2 6 , 201 8 ); see also T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (West 2015) (authorizing transfer of cases).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund IX, Ltd. at December  31,  1998,  and its  statement of
income for the year then ended and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10-K of CNL Income Fund IX, Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1,287,379
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  299,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                   206,052
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0<F1>
<PP&E>                                         16,777,365
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,711,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 30,099,078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0<F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     29,213,918
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   30,099,078
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,504,519
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  494,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               5,133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,286,698
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,286,698
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,286,698
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

<FN>
<F1>Due  to the  nature  of its  industry,  CNL  Income  Fund  IX,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore,  no values are shown above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>

</TABLE>