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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  235,983
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (25,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,770,713
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,540,233
<PP&E>                                         298,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                 130,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,947,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,433,812
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,148,378
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,947,512
<SALES>                                      2,645,966
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,645,966
<CGS>                                        1,808,818
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,980,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,869
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (332,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    72,894
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (259,246)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (259,246)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        

</TABLE>
#### PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Gabriel CORREA, Alicia Correa, Elkie Correa and Alicia Correa (deceased infant), Raul Pastorini and U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Company, a foreign corporation, Appellees.

No. 69-1089.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 16, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Edwin Morris SCHWAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-1118.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 20, 1969.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Jeffrey Michael Cohen, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and SWANN, J., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge.

SWANN, Judge.

The appellant, Schwam, appeals from his judgment and sentence for the crime of possession of burglary tools.

The question on appeal is whether there was sufficient competent evidence presented in the non-jury trial to prove that Schwam violated Fla.Stat. § 810.06, F.S.A.

In Estevez v. State, Fla.App.1966, 189 So.2d 830, 831, it was stated:

> “ * * * the principal elements of the crime are possession of a ‘burglarious tool’ with the intent to use, or allow the use of, the particular tool to commit a crime.”

Upon review of the testimony and evidence relating to possession and intent and in light of the evidence as to the surrounding facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there was substantial, competent evidence to support the guilty verdict and *791the judgment and sentence. See Troise v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 24; Rinehart v. State, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 487; Estevez v. State, supra.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, LLP INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 File Nos. 33-90378, 33-91560, 333-29191, 333-4148 and 333-56931)
pertaining to the Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1995 Stock Option/Stock
Issuance Plan and 1995 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan of Remedy
Corporation of our report dated January 20, 2000 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Remedy Corporation included in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                          /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
March 24, 2000
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 32001R1423

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/2001 of 12 July 2001 determining to what extent applications for the right to import for bulls, cows and heifers of certain Alpine and mountain breeds pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 can be met***Official Journal L 191 , 13/07/2001 P. 0032 - 0032*

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/2001

of 12 July 2001

determining to what extent applications for the right to import for bulls, cows and heifers of certain Alpine and mountain breeds pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 can be met

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 of 26 May 1999 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for imports of bulls, cows and heifers other than for slaughter, of certain Alpine and mountain breeds, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1012/98 and amending Regulation (EC) No 1143/98(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1096/2001(2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 provides for the quantities reserved for traditional importers under the two tariff quotas to be allocated in proportion to their imports during the period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 2000.

(2) Allocation of the quantities available to operators covered by Article 2(3) of that Regulation under the two tariff quotas is to be in proportion to the quantities applied for. Since the quantities applied for exceed those available, a fixed percentage reduction should be set,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. Every application for the right to import lodged in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 under serial number 09.0001 shall be granted to the following extent:

(a) 18,9260 % of the quantities imported within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999;

(b) 2,4937 % of the quantities applied for within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999.

2. Every application for the right to import lodged in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 under serial number 09.0003 shall be granted to the following extent:

(a) 19,6067 % of the quantities imported within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999;

(b) 2,5445 % of the quantities applied for within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 July 2001.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 131, 27.5.1999, p. 15.

(2) OJ L 150, 6.6.2001, p. 33.
262 La. 314

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Larry HUDSON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52585.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 22, 1972.

In re: Larry Hudson applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and other remedial writs.

Writ denied. The showing made does not justify the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction. See also our opinion in State v. Hudson, 253 La. 992, 221 So.2d 484 (1969) and the transcript of evidence at the trial (Wilson) and at the motion to suppress.
----

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2005 — ASAJA and Others v Council

(Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04) (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 - Support scheme in the olive oil sector - Natural and legal persons - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 296/53)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant(s): Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristóbal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos and Antonio Rarras Rosa (Jaén, Spain) (represented by: J. Vásquez Medina, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

Application for

annulment of Article 1(7) of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union.

Operative part of the Order

----

(1)OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

----
#### Mittie A. C. Rushing THREATT v. Johnny Roy RUSHING et al.

No. 50009.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 22, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1978.

Adams & Odom, Joe R. Odom, Walter T. Rogers, Meridian, for appellant.

Goldman & Goldman, Thomas L. Goldman, Meridian, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and BOWLING, JJ.

Affirmed.
#### ENOCH SPRUANCE, use of HENRY PRATT *vs.*WM. WELDON and WILLIAM REYNOLDS, use of T. FOXWELL.

Judgment entered by a magistrate on a judgment note set aside, the note not being sent up with the record.

Certiorari to Justice Townsend, on a judgment by Justice Fennimoi’e.

*176The record returned was of a judgment entered on a judgment note; of which no copy was sent up. Diminution was alledged, and the justice returned that no such note could be found among the records of the late Justice Fennimore.

*Platt,*for plaintiff.

*Rodney,*for defendant.

*Mr. Rodney*

excepted that there was no authority for the judgment ; and *Mr. Platt*argued that the authority would be implied; but

*The Court*

reversed the judgment, saying that not only the note but the terms of the warrant must be shown to support the judgment. The assignment also must be shown to be such as will justify a suit by the assignee in his own name.

Judgment reversed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-293

_____________________________

NATHANIEL STEWART,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPT. OF

CORRECTIONS,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Karen Gievers, Judge.

March 29, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, WINOKUR, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Nathaniel Stewart, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Kenneth S. Steely, 

General Counsel, Gayla Grant, Assistant General Counsel, Florida 

Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD v. T. R. RAY, INC.

No. 62760.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 14, 1978.

ORDER

IN THE MATTER OF the West Baton Rouge Parish School Board applying for writs of certiorari and review. The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered cause having been duly considered, IT IS ORDERED that the American Arbitration Association and Mr. Roy C. Kuyrdendall, Jr., Arbitrator, be and they are hereby enjoined from further proceedings in this case until judgment shall be pronounced by this Court in the matter of the applications for writs numbered 62760 on the docket of this Court.
Verizon California Inc.



EXHIBIT 12





COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES



|(Dollars in Millions)                                                                            |  | Six Months Ended June 30, 2003
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|Income before provision for income taxes and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle |  | $                             
|Interest expense                                                                                 |  |                               
|Portion of rent expense representing interest                                                    |  |                               
|Amortization of capitalized interest                                                             |  |                               
|                                                                                                 |  |                               
|Earnings, as adjusted                                                                            |  | $                             
|                                                                                                 |  |                               
|                                                                                                 | 
|Fixed charges:                                                                                   |  |                               
|Interest expense                                                                                 |  | $                             
|Portion of rent expense representing interest                                                    |  |                               
|Capitalized interest                                                                             |  |                               
|                                                                                                 |  |                               
|Fixed charges                                                                                    |  | $                             
|                                                                                                 |  |                               
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                                               |  |                               
|                                                                                                 |  |
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 27 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 27

 To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit bills 
      and joint resolutions from containing more than one subject.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

Mr. Zimmer (for himself, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Castle, and Mr. 
Rohrabacher) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                         the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to prohibit bills 
      and joint resolutions from containing more than one subject.

    Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause--
    ``9. (a) No bill, joint resolution, or amendment to any bill or 
joint resolution that contains more than a single subject may be 
received or considered in the House. A question of order on the number 
of subjects in any such bill, joint resolution or amendment thereto, 
may be raised at any time.
    ``(b) The single subject of any bill or joint resolution shall be 
expressed in the title.
    ``(c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) do not apply to a bill, joint 
resolution, or amendment thereto that complies, consolidates, revises, 
or rearranges the statutory law.''.

                                 <all>
```
Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10862

Conference Calendar

__________________

CLIFTON ROGER JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JIM BOWLES; DALLAS COUNTY JAIL;

P.I.A. PAROLE BOARD,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-1210-K

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1996

Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clifton Roger Johnson appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Johnson contends

that as a state prisoner confined to a county jail he is treated

differently and less favorably from inmates confined to a state

facility. We have reviewed the record and Johnson's brief, and

we perceive no abuse of discretion by the district court. We

AFFIRM the district court's dismissal for essentially the same
No. 95-10862

-2-

reasons adopted by the district court. Johnson v. Bowles, No.

3:95-CV-1210-K (N.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 1995).

AFFIRMED.
#### Henry ROTHROCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-516.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 16, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Humes T. Lasher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENS OF RSI SYSTEMS, INC. AS OF JUNE 30, 1996 AND
1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,032,921
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  573,433
<ALLOWANCES>                                    49,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,744,222
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,486,234
<PP&E>                                         624,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                 168,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,018,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,140,406
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        32,510
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,845,742
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,018,658
<SALES>                                      1,625,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,625,720
<CGS>                                        2,022,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,022,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,662,212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                37,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,878,825)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,878,825)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,878,825)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.56)
        





</TABLE>
[No. 1077-1.

Division One—Panel 1.

April 3, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ronald Van Duren, *Appellant.*
July 2012

Dear Guaranty

Agency Director : As y ou are aware, under the Secretary ’s general oversight authority , we asked each Guarant y A gency to provide to us, on a monthly basis, a report of the status of the agency ’s Federal and Operating funds est ablished pursuant to requirements of the Higher Education Act an d the Department’s regulations. This increased monitoring would allow the Department to identify areas of concern and to inform of oversight and technical assistance activities. Upon review of the 201 1 fiscal year data received , we have determined that we would like a detailed breakdown of specific data elements . For the 2013 fiscal ye ar , the Department is now requesting de tailed explanations for the following line items: MD - 20, MD - 36 (Othe r Revenues), MD - 25, MD - 39 (Other Expenses), MD - 51 (Accounts Receivable from ED), and MD - 54 (Accounts Pay able to ED). To guide you in this reporting requirement , we have added additional tabs to the monthly annual spreadsheet template that you currently se nd to us by

the 20 th of each month. Please be sure to update your records and utilize the new templ ate beginning with your October 201 2 monthly

submission . This modified procedure is to ensure that we are also gathering the guarant y agency data in a unif orm manner. The updated template now requires that y ou key in the specified data elements mentioned above on their respective tabs. You will continue to see the original template that will show the calculated balances of the Federal and Operating Funds, in addition to the Balance Sheet section. As a reminder, the monthly spreadsheet s must be submitted to the Department as an attachment to the Monthly .Report @ed.gov email address no later than 45 day s following the end of the month being reported . Please no te that there is no change to the current reporting requirements

—the due date is still the 20 th of the month. The “Subject L ine” of the email should indicate “GA Monthl y Fund Report

– <name of month> ” . The bod y of the email message must include the name of the agency and the name , phone number, and email address of an agency staff member who we can contact in the event we have questions on the content of the report. If appropriate, the agency

may include notes and comments that the agency would like the Department to consider as we review the data on the report.Page 2 - Guarant y Agency Director

We appreciate your cooperation. If you have an y questions on this reporting requirement , please contact the Monthly

Reporting Team via email at monthly .report@ed.gov . Sincerel y, Katrina Turner Director, Operations Performance Division Business Operations Attachment: Reporting Excel Spreadsheet
#### SARAH WAPLES, def't. *at’s.*WINGATE STREET, plaintiff.

Certiorari to Justice Mcllvaine.

Record of a judgment: Sarah Waples, *(widow of John),*at’s. Wingate Street. Action on account. Summons returned summoned. Defendant appeared by William Vent, her agent, and asked a postponement, which was granted. At the time to which the cause was adjourned the defendant appeared in person, and after hearing both parties, their proofs, &e., judgment for plaintiff for $26 20, and costs, 56 cents.

The defendant, Sarah Waples, filed an affidavit that no summons was served on her by her true and proper name, but by the name of Mary Waples; and that she never appeared in person or by the said William Vent.

*Saulsbury,*for defendant,

asked leave on this affidavit, to contradict the record; and cited 3 *Harr. Rep.*332, Calaway *vs.*Calaway.

*The Court*

refused to allow the defendant to assign these errors in fact.

On motion, *Mr. Saulsbury*was permitted to assign a further error in the record.