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 SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 (UNAUDITED)
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          72,160
<SECURITIES>                                   767,312
<RECEIVABLES>                                  318,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,029
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,200,526
<PP&E>                                         174,693
<DEPRECIATION>                                  69,739
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,346,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          748,589
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           774
<OTHER-SE>                                     597,396
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,346,739
<SALES>                                      3,032,589
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,075,008
<CGS>                                        2,421,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,898,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                172,049
<INCOME-TAX>                                    72,426
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             99,623
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    99,623
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.24
        

</TABLE>
#### Paul Clifford HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-489.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 8, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1972.

W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Jones v. State, Fla.App.2d 1961, 128 So.2d 754.

LILES, A. C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

|                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                               |  |  |  |  |
| Ohio                                          |   | 000-24498 |   | 65-0190407 |
| (State or other jurisdiction ofincorporation) |   | (Commission File Number) |   | (I.R.S. EmployerIdentification No.) |

|                                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |  |
| 325 John H. McConnell Blvd., Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio | 43215 |
| (Address of Principal Executive Offices)               | (Zip Code) |

|        |
|--------|
|        |
|   |

----

|                        |
|------------------------|
|                        |  |  |  |
| By Investment Vehicle  |
| Proprietary funds      | $ | 13,618 |  |
| Sub-advised funds      | 1,445 |  |
| Institutional accounts | 4,318 |  |
| Total                  | $ | 19,381 |  |

|                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                                     |  |  |  |
| By Investment Strategy                              |
| Small Cap                                           | $ | 1,843 |  |
| Small-Mid Cap                                       | 3,388 |  |
| Large Cap                                           | 8,497 |  |
| Select (All Cap)                                    | 404 |  |
| Long-Short                                          | 4,613 |  |
| Corporate bonds                                     | 581 |  |
| Core fixed income                                   | 237 |  |
|   (Less: Investments in affiliated funds) | (182 | ) |
| Total                                               | $ | 19,381 |  |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   |   | DIAMOND HILL INVESTMENT GROUP, INC. |
|   |   |   |   |
| Date:  | January 4, 2017 | By: |   | /s/ Thomas E. Line |
|   |   |   |   | Thomas E. Line, Chief Financial Officer |
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7802 

To require the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and any affiliates 

to return amounts received under the paycheck protection program, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 27, 2020 

Mrs. LESKO (for herself, Mr. FLORES, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. BANKS, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. 

BABIN, Mr. ROY, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. 

ARRINGTON, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. BUDD, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. 

BIGGS, Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee, Mr. SPANO, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. 

RESCHENTHALER, Mr. CLINE, Mr. MOONEY of West Virginia, Mr. 

WRIGHT, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. LATTA, Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. 

GRIFFITH, Mr. GUEST, Mr. WILLIAMS, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, 

Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina, Mr. FULCHER, Mrs. 

MILLER, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GREEN of Tennessee, Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana, and Mr. FORTENBERRY) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business 

A BILL 

To require the Planned Parenthood Federation of America 

and any affiliates to return amounts received under the 

paycheck protection program, 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, 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7802 IH

1 SECTION 1. RETURN OF PAYCHECK PROTECTION PRO2 GRAM AMOUNTS. 

3 Not later than 30 days after the date of the enact4 ment of this Act and upon request by the Secretary of 

5 the Treasury, the Planned Parenthood Federation of 

6 America (and any affiliates) shall return any amounts re7 ceived from a covered loan made under section 7(a)(36) 

8 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
---

|                                 | KPMG LLP | Telephone      | (604) 691-3000
|-------------------------------- | -------- | -------------- | --------------
|Chartered Accountants            | Fax      | (604) 691-3031
|PO Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir Street | Internet | www.kpmg.ca   
|Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3             |          |               
|Canada                           |          |               

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors Great Basin Gold Ltd.

We consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form
40-F/A of our Auditors Report dated March 16, 2007, except as to note 20 which
is as of March 30, 2007, on the consolidated balance sheet of Great Basin Gold
Ltd. (the Company) as at December 31, 2006 and the consolidated statements of
operations, deficit and cash flows for the year then ended which is contained in
this annual report on Form 40-F/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2007.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, Canada November 28, 2008

KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnership is the
Canadian member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

---
#### Paul HOLLIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-589.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 14, 1971.

Paul Hollis, in pro. per.

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

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A notice of appeal was filed on behalf of the defendant, Paul Hollis, by the public defender of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, on May 21, 1971. The public defender thereafter filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant, Paul Hollis, under the authority of Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Herzig, 208 So.2d 619 (Fla. 1968), together with his memorandum brief.

This court, in accordance with Anders, supra, withheld ruling on the motion to withdraw and mailed a copy of the motion and memorandum brief to the appellant, Paul Hollis, and granted him thirty days from August 2, 1971 in which to file a statement of points as grounds for support of his appeal. A copy of the order was mailed to appellant, the public defender and the attorney general. The correspondence forwarded to appellant, Paul Hollis, *43via the various prison authorities has been returned to the court.

On September 8, 1971, a similar order and procedure was followed and copies of the motion, order, and memorandum brief were mailed to the appellant, the public defender and the attorney general.

On or about September 27, 1971, correspondence from the court was returned with information from the Florida Division of Corrections that appellant, Paul Hollis, had been released from custody and that they did not know of his present whereabouts.

The court has received no correspondence or inquiries from the appellant concerning his appeal since the notice of appeal was filed on May 21, 1971.

Notwithstanding this, the court has considered the memorandum brief filed on behalf of the appellant by the public defender and has determined, upon full examination of the record and proceedings, that the appeal is wholly frivolous whereupon the public defender’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment and sentence of May 17, 1971 is hereby affirmed.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedur e.

NO. COA 14

- 497 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 October 2014
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

v. Surry County No. 12 CRS 53852 LINDA DAYE GEORGE

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 11 December 201 3 by Judge Edwin G. Wilson, Jr. , in Surry County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 September 2014
.

Att orne y General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Kimberly Grande, for the State. Wait Law, P .L.L.C., by John L. Wait, for defendant

appellant.

McCULLOUGH Judge.

Defendant Linda Daye George appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding her guilty of malicious conduct by a prisoner. The trial court sentenced defendant to a suspen ded term of 16 to 29 months imprisonment and placed her on supervised probation for 36 months. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.- 2

-

Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to instruct the jury on the charge of misdemeanor assault on a law enforcement officer. Defendant contends she was entitled to the instruction because misdemeanor assault on a law enforcement officer is a lesser include d offense of malicious conduct by a prisoner and the facts of her case satisfy both offenses
. Defendant is incorrect. It is well established that “ [a] defendant ‘ is entitled to an instruction on a lesser included offense if the evidence would permit a jur y rationally to find him guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater. ’” State v. Crouse , 169 N.C. App. 382, 386 , 610 S.E.2d 454, 457 ( quoting State v.
Leazer , 353 N.C. 234, 237, 539 S.E.2d 922, 924 (2000) ), disc
. review denied , 359 N.C. 637 , 616 S.E.2d 923 (2005) . However, North Carolina courts use “‘ a definitional test for determining whether a crime is in fact a lesser offense that merges with the greater offense. ’” Id. (quoting State v. Kemmerlin , 356 N.C. 446, 475, 573 S.E.2d 870, 890 (2002) )
. Using th e definitional test, this Court has held that “ misdemeanor assault on a government official is not a lesser included offense of felony malicious conduct by a prisoner. ” Id. Accordingly , the trial- 3

-

court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to instruct the jury on the charge of misdemeanor assault on a law enforcement officer as a lesser included offense to malicious conduct by a prisoner
. No error. Judges CALABRIA and GEER concur . Report per Rule 30(e).
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: | July 28, 2006
|----- | -------------



By:

/s/ José Maria AlapontJosé Maria AlapontChairman, President, and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ G. Michael LynchG. Michael LynchChief Financial Officer




68
SCWC

- 15

- 0000005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

________________________________________________________________

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A

. , SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BAC HOME LOANS
SERVICING, LP FKA CO UNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP
,

Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v

.

GRISEL REYES

- TOLEDO
, Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant,

and

WAI KALOI AT MAKAKILO COMMUNITY A SSOCIATION;

MAK AKILO COMMUNITY ASSO CIATION; and

PALEHUA COMMUNITY AS SOCIATION
, Respondents/Defendants

- Appellees

.

_____________

___________________________________________________

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CAAP

- 15

- 0000005 ; CIVIL NO. 12

- 1

- 0668 )

ORDER ACCEP TING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McK enna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ. , and Circuit Court Judge Garibaldi, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused )

Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant Grisel Reyes

- Toledo ’s

application for wri t of certiorari filed on October 19 , 2017 , is

hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral arg ument will be

held, subject to further order of this court . Any party may, Electronically Filed Supreme Court

SCWC-15-0000005

24-NOV-2017

03:05 PM2

within ten days and pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai  i Rules

of Appellate Procedure, move for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, November 24 , 2017

.

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/ s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Colette Y. Garibaldi
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7908 

To designate the El Paso Community Healing Garden National Memorial 

located at 6900 Delta Drive, El Paso, Texas and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2020 

Ms. ESCOBAR (for herself, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. NORTON, Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas, Mr. ESPAILLAT, Mr. VELA, Mr. GARCI ́A of Illinois, Mr. 

CASTRO of Texas, Ms. GARCIA of Texas, Mr. MALINOWSKI, Mrs. MURPHY of Florida, Mr. MEEKS, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Ms. MUCARSEL-POWELL, 

Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. CISNEROS, Mr. WELCH, 

Mr. VEASEY, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. 

CICILLINE, Mrs. HAYES, Mr. MCEACHIN, Ms. MOORE, Mr. GOMEZ, Ms. 

WILD, Mr. STANTON, Mr. CA ́RDENAS, Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. MENG, Mr. 

LOWENTHAL, Mr. NADLER, Mr. HIMES, Ms. PRESSLEY, Mr. RASKIN, Ms. 

LEE of California, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. 

CLARK of Massachusetts, Ms. HAALAND, Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Mr. MCGOVERN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate the El Paso Community Healing Garden National Memorial located at 6900 Delta Drive, El Paso, 

Texas 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7908 IH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF EL PASO COMMUNITY HEAL2 ING GARDEN NATIONAL MEMORIAL. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Healing Garden located at 

4 6900 Delta Drive, El Paso, Texas is designated as the 

5 ‘‘El Paso Community Healing Garden National Memo6 rial’’. 

7 (b) EFFECT OF DESIGNATION.—The national memo8 rial designated by this section is not a unit of the National 

9 Park System and the designation of the El Paso Commu10 nity Healing Garden National Memorial shall not require 

11 or authorize Federal funds to be expended for any purpose 

12 related to that national memorial. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Roger HAMRICK, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 39762.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 8, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 235 So.2d 360.

THORNAL, CARLSON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, C. J., dissents.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, R. James Kelly, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of FamilyDollar Stores, Inc., (the “Company”), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to my knowledge:

·                  theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended November 25,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

·                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  March 28, 2007

 
| /s/ R. James Kelly |                                                                                                         |
|--------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|               | R. James Kelly                                                                                               |
|               | President and Chief Operating Officer — Interim  Chief Financial Officer  (Principal Financial Officer) |
|                    |                                                                                                              |  |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and will be retained by Family DollarStores, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-12-00759-CR

IN RE David SALINAS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 21, 2012

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On November 9, 2012, relator David Salinas filed a petition for writ of mandamus, 

complaining the trial court has failed to rule on his “motion for judgment and sentence nunc pro 

tunc.” However, in order to be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish the trial court: 

(1) had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act; (2) was asked to perform the act; and (3) 

failed or refused to do so. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, 

orig. proceeding). When a properly filed motion is pending before a trial court, the act of giving 

consideration to and ruling upon that motion is ministerial, and mandamus may issue to compel 

the trial judge to act. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2010-CR-7306B, 2010-CR-7307, 2010-CR-7308 , 2010-CR-7309, 2010-

CR-7310, 2010-CR-7311, 2010-CR-7312, 2010-CR-7313, 2010-CR-7314, 2010-CR-7315, and 2010-CR-7316,

styled State of Texas v. David Salinas, in the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable 

Melisa Skinner presiding. 
04-12-00759-CR

- 2 -

Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). However, mandamus will not issue unless the record indicates 

that a properly filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time. See id. 

Relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to 

mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a) (“Relator must file with the petition [ ] a certified 

or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was 

filed in any underlying proceeding”); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); Walker v. Packer, 

827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). 

Here, relator’s motion has been pending only since September 13, 2012. We cannot say 

the motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time. Based on the foregoing, 

we conclude relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

October 6, 2014

Andrew Couris

Outside of the United States

Re: In the Matter of Graco, Inc., Illinois Tool Works Inc., and ITW Finishing LLC, 

Docket No. 9350

Thank you for the electronic mail submission dated June 18, 2012, which you submitted 

in connection with the Proposed Consent Agreement in the Matter of Graco, Inc. In your letter, 

you expressed concerns that allowing Graco to control the ITW electrostatic liquid equipment 

would result in higher prices and less innovative equipment. Pursuant to the order in Docket No. 

9350, Graco, Inc., Illinois Tool Works Inc., and ITW Finishing LLC (“ITW”) agreed to hold 

separate ITW’s liquid finishing businesses pending the Commission’s final order regarding 

divestiture. As a result, a trustee approved by the Commission has supervised and continues to 

supervise the operation of the ITW liquid finishing businesses ensuring that Graco does not 

control the ITW business.

The purpose of the divestiture is to restore competition lost through the transaction. In 

evaluating the complete divestiture package required to remedy the likely competitive harm 

arising from the merger, the Commission analyzed all of the information available to it against 

that standard, including your public comment. The Commission determined that all of ITW’s 

liquid finishing businesses, including the Binks, Ransburg, and DeVilbiss lines, must be divested 

to a single buyer within six months of its order.

It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work on 

antitrust and consumer protection issues, and we appreciate your interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Ohlhausen abstaining and 

Commissioners Wright and McSweeny not participating.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary