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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND IN FORM 10-K AS FILED WITH THE SEC
ON MARCH 28, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      21,303,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              120,812,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                24,171,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,455,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           168,525,000
<PP&E>                                       9,174,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,515,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             185,034,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       74,124,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       190,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 110,570,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               185,034,000
<SALES>                                    302,357,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           302,357,000
<CGS>                                      134,563,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              134,563,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           117,668,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            35,009,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             230,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             51,228,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                18,287,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         32,941,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                32,941,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.63


</TABLE>
No. 10636.

#### Burgess, Exr., *v.*Bush et al.

Decided May 26, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. John J. Sullivan,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Beardsley & Morgan,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price-, C. J., Si-iauci-c, Crew and Summers, JJ., concur,
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-36754, 33-52506, 33-62098, 33-58637, 333-88151, 333-88773,333-61294, 333-118493 and 333-73348 of BJ Services Company on Form S-8 of our reports dated December 14, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of BJ Services Company and management’s report on theeffectiveness of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of BJ Services Company for the year ended September 30, 2005. 

 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHELLP 

 

Houston, Texas 

December 14, 2005
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-30655, 333-74747,
333-74715, 333-78521, 333-78567, 333-83725, 333-35806, 333-62502, 333-84010, 333-90986,
333-91002, 333-117334 and 333-137396 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-32221, 333-60277,
333-70335, 333-85269, 333-92361, 333-32526, 333-40698, 333-47914, 333-67978, 333-73274,
333-81170, and 333-84932 on Form S-3 of our report dated May xx, 2009 relating to the consolidated financial statements of THQ Inc. and its
subsidiaries (the "Company") as of and for the year ended March 28, 2009 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph referring to a change in the
accounting for income taxes) and our report dated May 22, 2009 relating to the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of THQ Inc. for the year ended March 28, 2009.

DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP

Los Angeles,
California
May 22, 2009

---



QuickLinks
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7606 

To require the Comptroller General to submit to Congress a report on the 

impact of the Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Regulation, to limit the 

authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 13, 2020 

Mr. WILLIAMS (for himself and Ms. JOHNSON of Texas) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require the Comptroller General to submit to Congress 

a report on the impact of the Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Regulation, to limit the authority for the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘MFAR Transparency 

5 Act’’. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7606 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENT RELATING TO THE 

2 MEDICAID FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY REGU3 LATION. 

4 (a) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.—Not later 

5 than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, 

6 the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report 

7 that— 

8 (1) identifies the reporting requirements that 

9 are necessary to ensure that States comply with laws 

10 and regulations with respect to the financing of the 

11 non-Federal share of expenditures under State plans 

12 under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 

13 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.); 

14 (2) estimates the financial impact of the pro15 posed rulemaking entitled, ‘‘Medicaid Program; 

16 Medicaid Fiscal Accountability Regulation’’ pub17 lished by the Secretary of Health and Human Serv18 ices on November 18, 2019 with respect to all health 

19 care facilities that receive supplemental or direct 

20 payments under such title XIX funded through 

21 intergovernmental transfers; 

22 (3) evaluate the impact of the proposed rule23 making described in paragraph (2) with respect to 

24 State and local budgets, including the impact of tax 

25 increases that would be necessary to maintain cur26 rent funding for hospitals and nursing homes that 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7606 IH

1 receive payments from intergovernmental transfers 

2 (as of the date of enactment of this Act); and 

3 (4) identifies the impact of the proposed rule4 making described in paragraph (2) with respect to 

5 intergovernmental transfers of funds from units of 

6 government within a State and provider taxes paid 

7 authorized under section 1903(w) of the Social Secu8 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(w)). 

9 (b) LIMITATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE SEC10 RETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.—The Sec11 retary of Health and Human Services may not take any 

12 action (through promulgation of regulation, issuance of 

13 regulatory guidance, or other administrative action), un14 less the 116th Congress enacts a resolution that author15 izes such action, to finalize or otherwise implement provi16 sions contained in the proposed rulemaking described in 

17 subsection (a)(2). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Louis A. BELL, III, Appellant, v. Diane M. BELL, Appellee.

No. 73-1033.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 5, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; Tom Waddell, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                  Subsidiaries.


                                    THQ INC.



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
ENTITY NAME                                                JURISDICTION
-----------                                                ------------
<S>                                                        <C>
Black Pearl Software, Inc.                                 Illinois
GameFx, Inc.                                               Delaware
Pacific Coast Power and Light Company                      California
Rushware Microhandelsgesellschaft mbH                      Germany
T.HQ Deutschland GmbH (Formed on May 10, 1993)             Germany
T.HQ International, Ltd.                                   United Kingdom
THQ International (Holdings) Ltd.                          United Kingdom
THQ France                                                 France
Genetic Anomalies, Inc.                                    Delaware
</TABLE>
#### Joseph HUDSON, Jr., Appellant, v. Rita O. HUDSON, Appellee.

No. 2389.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 26, 1969.

Edward R. Kirkland, Orlando, for appellant. Francis E. Pierce, Jr., of Pierce & Lewis, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant husband appeals from a final decree of divorce, complaining of an award to the wife of a special equity in the marital domicile of the parties and of the amount awarded the wife for alimony and attorney’s fees. The record contains substantial competent evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding of a special equity in favor of the wife, Sharpe v. Sharpe, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 822. Likewise, there is a substantial evidentiary basis for the award of alimony and attorney’s fees to the wife and there being no showing that the trial court abused its discretion in regard to these items, they will not be disturbed on appeal. Bencomo v. Bencomo, Fla.App. *6971967, 195 So.2d 874; Farr v. Farr, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 890.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and OWEN, J., and Mac-MILLAN, HUGH, Associate Judge, concur.
#### FASHION TWO TWENTY, INC., Appellant, v. RALPH AND REBA, INC., Ralph Meyer and Reba L. Meyer, his wife, individually, et al., Appellees.

Nos. 71-983, 71-984.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 19, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1971.

*50Blackwell,,Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, Kottler & Danzig and Randall D. Luke, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Pettigrew & Bailey, Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl, Robert J. Lewison, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and BARKDULL, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

These interlocutory appeals are from an order denying defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and an order denying a motion for rehearing addressed to the same order. The suit was brought by a franchisee against its franchisor. The question presented is whether a franchisor who is not and has not been physically present in this state can be said to be doing business in the state where the franchisor exerts control over the franchisee and others so that the franchise is breached.

We affirm the finding of the trial judge that appellant was doing business in this state within the meaning of F.S. § 48.181, F.S.A. See Woodring v. Crown Engineering Co., Fla.App.1962, 141 So.2d 816. See also DiGiovanni v. Gittelson, Fla.App.1965, 181 So.2d 195, and Reader’s Digest Ass’n, v. State Ex Rel. Conner, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 552, where this court distinguished Fawcett Publications, Inc. v. Rand, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 512.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

      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 Annual Report of Simon Worldwide, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
George G. Golleher, a member of the Executive Committee of the Board of
Directors which has responsibility for the role of principal executive 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, 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.


                                                 /s/ George G. Golleher
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 George G. Golleher
                                                 Executive Committee Member
                                                 March 30, 2004
EXHIBIT
31.2





CERTIFICATION





I, David
A. Nail, Chief Financial Officer, hereby certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The Banker's Store, Inc. (the
"small business issuer");





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 the 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 small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small
business issuer and have:





(a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those
subsidiaries, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;





(b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report my 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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and





5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):





(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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.





/s/ David A. NailDavid
      A. NailCFOJanuary
      20, 2009
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6421** 

DAVID GLENN GREEN , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. JUSTIN F. ANDREWS , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Statesville
. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. ( 5:15

- cv - 00097

- FDW )

Submitted : September 20, 2016 Decided: September 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. David Glenn Green, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David Glenn Green appeals from the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. Green contends that he is no longe r a career offender after Johnson v. United
States , 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). However, Green received a mandatory life sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) (2012). As such, his sentence was not driven by his career offender status. While Green contends that he was incorrectly sentenced under
§ 3559(c), we hold that this claim is not cognizable under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) , given the facts of Green’s case. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s orde r. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 United
States Code § 1350 and

Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



The Undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of
Federal-Mogul Corporation (the Company) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in such quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form within the
electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: October 29, 2004



By:

/s/ Robert S. Miller, Jr.Robert S. Miller, Jr. Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ G. Michael LynchG. Michael Lynch Chief Financial Officer




68
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

May 9, 2014

Amanda Wait, Esq.

Hunton & Williams LLP

2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20037

Re: In the Matter of Service Corporation International and Stewart Enterprises, Inc.

Docket No. C-4423

Dear Ms. Wait:

This is in reference to the Petition For Approval of Proposed Divestiture filed by Service 

Corporation International (“SCI”) and received on March 6, 2014 (“Petition”). Pursuant to the 

Decision and Order in Docket No. C-4423, SCI requests prior Commission approval of its 

proposal to divest certain assets to Legacy Funeral Holdings, Inc. (“Legacy”).

After consideration of SCI’s Petition and other available information, the Commission 

has determined to approve the proposed divestiture as set forth in the Petition. In according its 

approval, the Commission has relied upon the information submitted and the representations 

made by SCI and Legacy in connection with SCI’s Petition and has assumed them to be accurate 

and complete.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

cc: Paul Houston

97 North Street

Brooklin, Ontario

Canada, L1M-0C5
259 La. 810

#### Allen GUILLORY, Individually and on Behalf of his two minor sons, Joseph A. and Derrel Guillory v. Estell DESHOTEL et al.

No. 51711.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 15, 1971.

In re: Allen Guillory, individually and on behalf of his two minor sons, Joseph A. and Derrell Guillory applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Evangeline. 251 So.2d 91.

Writ refused. The judgment is correct.
#### Eliza MOSELEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. Emmett S. ROBERTS, Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, State of Florida, Appellee.

No. T-283.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 15, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
1 COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

I N THE INTEREST OF I. L. AND A. E.,

MINOR CHILDREN

,

Appellant

,

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 0 16

- CV

Appeal from the

65 th D istrict Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 201 8D CM 2305 )

O R D E R

Counsel for Appellant E.L. has moved to withdraw from representing Appellant on

appeal. The motion is GRANTED.

We further note that although Appellant was entitled to appointed counsel in the trial

court, Appellant is not entitled to appointed counsel on appeal.

The Texas Family Code provides for appointed counsel for an indigent parent in child

protection cases brought by the government “in which termination of the parent

- child

relationship or the appointment of a conservator for a child is requested[.]” T EX .F AM .C ODE A NN

. § 107.013(a)(1). Here, there is no request from the Department for termination or appointment

of a conservator at issue on appeal, nor is there a judgment terminating Appel lant’s parental

rights or naming the Department as a child’s managing conservator. Instead, the trial court

issued an order dismissing the Department’s case because Mother had complied with the service

plan. After ruling on that portion of the case, the tr ial court then ruled separately on a purported

counterclaim Appellant brought against Mother for custody of their daughter and dismissed

Father’s counterclaim.

Because the dispute is now essentially a private dispute between Appellant and Mother

over cu stody of their child following dismissal of the Department’s action, Appellant is not

entitled to appointed counsel. Cf. In re J.C. , 250 S.W.3d 486, 487

- 88 (Tex.App.

— Fort Worth

2008, pet. denied), cert. denied sub nom Rhine v. Deaton , 559 U.S. 903 (2010)(p arent not2

entitled to statutory appointed counsel when the Department is non

- suited and the only

remaining termination claim is brought by a private party).

Further, Appellant ’ s brief is due with this Court on or before April 13, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6 th day of March , 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.