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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          17,594                   1,030
<SECURITIES>                                    24,263                   6,625
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,252                  19,931
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (580)                    (35)
<INVENTORY>                                     28,921                  15,363
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,769                  46,604
<PP&E>                                          25,317                   9,123
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (6,348)                 (1,819)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,243                  54,020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,434                  12,270
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             2                       2
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,188                  41,748
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,243                  54,020
<SALES>                                         97,515                  42,805
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,515                  42,805
<CGS>                                           56,274                  24,573
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   83,624                  40,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,350                  15,822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (579)                    (48)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (71)                   (301)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,130                   2,723
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,062                     138
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,068                   2,585
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,068                   2,585
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.74                    0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
#### Thomas A. MULLIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS and State of Florida, Department of Education, Respondents.

No. BD-93.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 2, 1978.

I. Paul Mandelkern and James M. Russ, Orlando, for petitioner.

Howard R. Marsee of Pitts, Eubanks, Ross & Rumberger, Orlando, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the briefs and arguments of the respective parties, we determine that we do not have jurisdiction over this petition for review, petition for writ of prohibition or supplemental petition for writ of prohibition. The rule nisi previously issued is discharged and the petition for review denied.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Mullin asked this court to stop the disciplinary proceeding against him, contending the applicable statute of limitations had run. We determined we had no jurisdiction. On rehearing, Mullin contends we overlooked *Circuit Court of Twelfth Judicial Circuit v. Dept. of Natural Resources,*339 So.2d 1113 (Fla.1976) and *State ex rel. Division of Administration v. Oliff,*350 So.2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Those cases entertained prohibition where sovereign immunity was asserted by an agency. Mullin argues the running of the statute of limitations renders the Department without subject matter jurisdiction just as the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity.

Research reveals no Florida opinions applying prohibition where the statute of limitations allegedly has run. We do not find it appropriate. *Malone v. Meres,*91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677, 684 (1926) stated:

> “ ‘Jurisdiction of a subject-matter of an action is a power to adjudge concerning the general question involved therein, and is not dependent upon the state of facts which may appear in a particular case, or the ultimate existence of a good *1217cause of action in the plaintiff therein. A judgment rendered by a court, having power lawfully conferred to deal with the general subject involved in the action, and having jurisdiction of the parties, although against the facts or without facts to sustain it, is not void as rendered without jurisdiction, and cannot be questioned collaterally.’ *Hunt v. Hunt,*72 N.Y. 217, 28 Am.Rep. 129.”

The Department clearly had jurisdiction to initiate the disciplinary proceeding ‘against Mullin. By analogy Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(d) specifically lists the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. If not raised, it is waived. Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, on the other hand, may be raised at any time. Rule 1.140(h)(2).

The hearing officer’s interlocutory order refusing to dismiss the proceeding on the basis of the limitation is one reviewable on appeal, and not subject to collateral attack as a matter of right. The petition for rehearing is

DENIED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and MILLS and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 14544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05360]

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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK of the UNITED STATES

Sunshine Act Meetings

ACTION: Sunshine Act Notice of Open Meeting of the Advisory Committee 
of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank).

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

TIME AND PLACE: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 
The meeting will be held at the Export-Import Bank in Room 326, 811 
Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571.

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee was established November 30, 1983, to 
advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments 
for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States to Congress.

AGENDA: Agenda items include briefings and discussions on the following 
topics: Ex-Im Bank business, Ex-Im Bank competitiveness report and Ex-
Im Bank's content policy review.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting will be open to public participation, 
and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or 
comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) 
before or after the meeting.
    If members of the public wishes to attend, they must contact Niki 
Shepperd by 5pm (EST) on March 19, 2013. If any person wishes auxiliary 
aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special 
accommodations, please contact, by March 19, 2013, Niki Shepperd. Niki 
Shepperd can be reached at: 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20571, Voice: (202) 565-3202 or TDD (202) 565-3377.

FURTHER INFORMATION: For further information, contact Niki Shepperd, 
811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3202.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-05360 Filed 3-4-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
#### Jerry Landell HOLMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-787.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 9, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
      23.1




CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
      Form
      S-8 (No. 333495549, No. 333-89908, No. 33345463, No. 333-55604, No. 333-63762,
      No. 333-47190, No. 333-111511, and 333-120455)and Form S-3 (No. 333-47034,
      No.
      333-47184, No. 333-47190, No. 333-70337, No. 333-102847, No. 333-102391, No.
      333-101303, No. 333-100080, No. 333-89974, and No. 333-86438) of Wave Wireless
      Corporation of our report dated February 17, 2006, relating to the financial
      statements, which appear in this Form
      10-KSB.





/s/
      AIDMAN, PISER & COMPANY, P.A.





Tampa,
      Florida


March
      23,
      2006
#### W. S. JORDAN v. TEXACO, INC., et al.

No. 45832.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 18, 1970.

Lee V. Hamberlin, Hernando, for appellant.

Garner, Whitten, May & Garner, Her-nando, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit32.3**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Joseph A. Santangelo, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

3.                                       ThisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Orleans Homebuilders, Inc. (the “Company”) forthe period ended December 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  | March 1,  2004           |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | Joseph A.  Santangelo    |   |
|   | Joseph A.  Santangelo    |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Francis H. HILLIARD v. Elden Ray SHUFF.

No. 54263.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 25, 1974.

In re: Elden Ray Shuff applying for Certiorari, or Writ of Review, to the Court of /Vppeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 285 So.2d 266.

Application denied. On the facts found, there is no error in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

BARHAM, J., concurs in denial of writ.
1

The Honorable Robert N. Armen, Jr., United States Tax Court Judge.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3695

___________

Richard E. Walbaum, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * Tax Court.

*

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 1, 2010

Filed: July 23, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Walbaum appeals the tax court’s1

 dismissal of his petition challenging

notices of deficiency for tax years 2003, 2004, and 2006. Walbaum argues that the

tax court erred by refusing to accept his corrected tax returns, and by not shifting the

burden of proof regarding the deficiencies to the IRS Commissioner; he also asserts

several tax-protestor arguments. The Commissioner has moved for sanctions against

Walbaum.
-2-

After careful de novo review, see Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th

Cir. 2005) (de novo review standard); Campbell v. Comm’r, 164 F.3d 1140, 1142 (8th

Cir. 1999) (taxpayer bears burden of proving that Commissioner’s determination was

erroneous), we conclude that the dismissal of Walbaum’s petition was proper for the

reasons stated by the tax court. We further conclude that the tax court was not

required to shift the burden of proof regarding the deficiencies to the Commissioner,

see Scherping v. Comm’r, 747 F.2d 478, 480 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (in

deficiency actions Commissioner’s determination is presumed correct, and petitioner

bears burden to prove otherwise); see also 26 U.S.C. § 7491(a) (describing

circumstances where burden shifts), and that the tax-protestor arguments raised by

Walbaum are frivolous, see United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255, 1256 (8th Cir.

1993) (per curiam) (we have rejected, on numerous occasions, tax-protestor argument

that federal income tax is unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned; wages

are within definition of income under Internal Revenue Code and Sixteenth

Amendment, and are subject to taxation); United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750

(7th Cir. 1985) (argument that category “employee” in 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) does not

include privately employed wage earners is “preposterous” reading of statute);

Denison v. Comm’r, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (rejecting as

frivolous taxpayer’s arguments that wages were not income and that Internal Revenue

Code was unconstitutional).

Regarding the motion for sanctions, we may award “just damages” and single

or double costs if we determine that an appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1912;

Fed. R. App. P. 38. In this case, we conclude that Walbaum has filed a frivolous

appeal and that sanctions are appropriate. See Gerads, 999 F.2d at 1256-57 (granting

government’s motion for sanctions where appellant brought frivolous appeal based

on tax-protester argument).
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal, and we grant the Commissioner’s motion

for sanctions in the amount of $5000.00.

 ______________________________
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7833 

To authorize the Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility study for the 

project for comprehensive watershed study, Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 29, 2020 

Mr. GONZALEZ of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To authorize the Corps of Engineers to conduct a feasibility 

study for the project for comprehensive watershed study, 

Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. 

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 ‘‘Tuscarawas River 

5 Flooding Study Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TUSCARAWAS RIVER BASIN, OHIO. 

7 The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 

8 of Engineers, is authorized to conduct a feasibility study 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7833 IH

1 for the project for comprehensive watershed study, 

2 Tuscarawas River Basin, Ohio. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 621 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 621

   To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide punishments for 
fleeing Federal law enforcement personnel during the execution of their 
                                duties.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 26, 1993

Mr. McCandless introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide punishments for 
fleeing Federal law enforcement personnel during the execution of their 
                                duties.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Anti-Flight Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. TITLE 18 AMENDMENT.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1518. Fleeing Federal law enforcement officer
    ``(a) Whoever, while driving a motor vehicle, knowingly and 
willfully flees a Federal law enforcement officer in the execution of 
that officer's duties shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not 
more than 5 years, or both.
    ``(b) As used in this section, the term `Federal law enforcement 
officer' means an individual described in section 1114 of this 
title.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following new item:

``1518. Fleeing Federal law enforcement officer.''.

                                 <all>
```
FTC Form 232 (rev 7/11)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20580

CASE NAME FILE/DOCKET NUMBER

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in the above 

proceeding the appearance of

□ counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below)

□ counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

□ counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES)

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone 

number of each counsel or representative entering an 

appearance in the above proceeding,

Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, 

partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf 

this Notice of Appearance is being filed.

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 5. DATE SIGNED

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission

Room H-113

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Michael Lovinger (Attorney)

 mlovinger@ftc.gov

U.S. Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

Phone Number: 202-326-2539

Ardagh Group S.A., et al. 11/6/2013 Catharine M. Moscatelli D09356 (Edward D. Hassi)

11 06 2013
August 3, 2016

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 3rd day of August, 2016.

10-15-00042-CR	BRENDA ELAINE PATTERSON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS - ON APPEAL FROM THE 220TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAMILTON COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. CR-07998 – AFFIRMED – Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

	“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the judgment be in all things affirmed and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                     $    37,043
<SECURITIES>                                   327,387
<RECEIVABLES>                                  301,752
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  4,254,924
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           $ 4,601,242
<PP&E>                                       2,215,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                  70,613
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             $ 7,144,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      $ 2,606,179
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               $ 2,606,179
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Hartford Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10Q for the quarter ending July 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I Neil H. Ellis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

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

      /s/ Neil H.Ellis            Neil H. Ellis President and Chief Executive Officer 

March 16, 2004
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

American Securities Partners VII, L.P ., 

a limited partnership, 

) 

) 

) FTC File No 211-0131

Prince International Corporation 

a corporation, and 

) 

) 

Ferro Corporation, 

a corporation. 

) 

) 

) 

AGREEMENT CONTAINING CONSENT ORDERS 

The Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") initiated an investigation of the 

proposed acquisition by American Securities Partners VII, L.P ., the ultimate parent entity of 

Prince International Corporation, of all the voting securities of Ferro Corporation ( collectively 

"Proposed Respondents"). The Commission's Bureau of Competition has prepared a draft 

administrative complaint ("Draft Complaint"). The Bureau of Competition, Proposed 

Respondents, and proposed Acquirer KPS Capital Partners, LP ("KPS") enter into this 

Agreement Containing Consent Orders ("Consent Agreement"). Proposed Respondents enter 

into the Consent Agreement to divest certain assets and to provide for other relief to resolve the 

allegations in the Draft Complaint through a proposed Decision and Order and Order to Maintain 

Assets, all of which are attached, to present to the Commission. KPS enters into the Consent 

Agreement to receive prior Commission approval before it sells certain assets that it acquires 

from the Proposed Respondent Prince International Corporation. 

IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between Proposed Respondents, by their duly 

authorized officers and attorneys, and counsel for the Commission that: 

1. Proposed Respondent American Securities Partners VII, L.P. is a limited partnership

organized, existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of Delaware, with

its executive offices and principal place of business located at 590 Madison A venue, 38th

Floor, New York, New York, 10022.

2. Proposed Respondent Prince International Corporation is a corporation organized,

existing, and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware with