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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIALS STATEMENTS FOUND ON PAGES F-1 THROUGH F-4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K
FOR THE YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,875
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                       519
<INVENTORY>                                     83,369
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,410
<PP&E>                                          11,307
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,158
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,423
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,527
<BONDS>                                          4,131
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,761
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,423
<SALES>                                        148,130
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,130
<CGS>                                          132,260
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,260
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,194
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,664
<INCOME-TAX>                                       693
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                971
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       971
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27
        

</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals
**For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________

No. 23

- 3271

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Andre Darrell Jones, Jr.

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________

Submitted: February 14 , 2024 Filed: February 20, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD

, STRAS , and KOBES , Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After violating the conditions of supervised release, Andre Jones, Jr. received
a 14

- month prison sentence. His counsel, who seeks permission to withdraw, suggests the sentence is procedural ly and substantively flawed . In a pro se filing, Jones argues it is also illegal.-2- We conclude otherwise

. T here was no procedural error because the record
establishes that the district court 1 relied on only the stipulated violations, correctly
calculated the advisory range, and explained the upward variance

. See United States v. Krzyzaniak , 702 F.3d 1082, 1085 (8th Cir. 2013) (reviewing for plain error when the defendant did not object and considering the whole sentencing record). It also
shows that Jones waived any challenge to the length of the sentence by expressly “agree[ing] to the 14 months.” See United States v. Campbell , 764 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a “defendant cannot complain that the district court gave him exactly what his lawyer asked” (citation omitted)).

Finally, the sentence is legal because it falls below the statutory maximum.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (setting a two

- year limit for class C felonies). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission
to withdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I,
Howard S. Modlin, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer,
and I, William G. Henry, Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief
Financial Officer, each of General DataComm Industries, Inc. (the "Company"), do
each hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge that:

         (1) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2004 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

         This Certification accompanies this Form 10-Q as an exhibit, but shall
not be deemed as having been filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the
certifying officer.


                                    /s/ HOWARD S. MODLIN
Date: August 12, 2004               --------------------------------------------
                                    Howard S. Modlin,
                                      Chairman of the Board, President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer



                                    /s/ WILLIAM G. HENRY
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    William G. Henry
                                      Vice President, Finance and Administration
                                        and Chief Financial Officer

                                       31
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MONTERRAY ROBINSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 130 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 287 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 287

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 28, 1993.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order, 
any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider in the House 
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 283) making further continuing appropriations 
for the fiscal year 1994, and for other purposes. Debate on the joint resolution 
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage 
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### JOHN W. DUBREE, d. b. app’t. *vs.*JOSHUA PUSEY, p. b. resp’t.

Rule narr. on a plaintiff, against whom there were tea returns of non est inventus.

Appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace in an action of assumpsit.

*Patterson,*for defendant.

*Mr. Patterson*

moved in this case for a rule on the plaintiff to file his narr. by Thursday of next week. He had issued two citations, and had two returns of non est inventus. He revived the question started in *Jeans*vs. *Milford,*3 *Harr. Rep.,*48, as to the mode of .proceeding where the plaintiff below will not appear to the appeal.

He said that in many other cases the court had held two returns of “nihil” or of “non est,” as equivalent to a citation; and some such rule was necessary in this case, to proceed in the appeal. The law secures the right of appeal to a defendant, which would be inoperative, unless there can be a mode of compelling the plaintiff to appear to the appeal.

*The Court*

laid the rule as prayed, that the plaintiff declare by Thursday next, or judgment of non pros., treating him as cited.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 13 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 13

     Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
     President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, should 
  posthumously advance Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to the grade of 
                      admiral on the retired list.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

Mrs. Bentley submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the 
     President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, should 
  posthumously advance Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to the grade of 
                      admiral on the retired list.

Whereas Admiral Husband E. Kimmel was commander in chief of the United States 
        Pacific Fleet at the time of the surprise Japanese attack on Pearl 
        Harbor on December 7, 1941;
Whereas, at the time of the attack, Admiral Kimmel had the grade of admiral 
        pursuant to a temporary designation, but following the attack was 
        retired as a rear admiral, which was his permanent grade;
Whereas a naval court of inquiry found that, prior to and during the attack, no 
        individual in the naval service committed any offense or incurred 
        serious blame;
Whereas the naval court of inquiry specifically approved the judgments and 
        actions of Admiral Kimmel under the circumstances prior to and during 
        the attack;
Whereas section 414 of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 permits the President, 
        in his discretion and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
        to advance certain naval officers to the grade of admiral on the retired 
        list;
Whereas, under such section, a naval officer who retired prior to the August 7, 
        1947, and who served in the grade of admiral pursuant to section 18 of 
        the Act of May 22, 1917, is eligible for consideration for such 
        advancement;
Whereas, when section 414 of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 was implemented, 
        Rear Admiral Kimmel's name was not submitted by the Department of the 
        Navy to the President for such advancement; and
Whereas, under the Act, such advancement of Rear Admiral Kimmel is at the 
        discretion of the President: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, should 
posthumously advance Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, United States 
Navy, to the grade of admiral on the retired list.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule
13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of G&K Services, Inc.;
 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 this 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    By:
    /s/ Douglas A. MilroyDouglas A. Milroy, Chief Executive Officer 
and Director(Principal Executive Officer)
#### FREELS *v.*WARDEN OF THE MARYLAND PENITENTIARY

[App. No. 59,

September Term, 1962.]

*Decided February 8, 1963.*

Before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott, HornEy, Marbury and Sybert, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Blaine H. Freels in his petition for post conviction relief contends: (i) that there was unnecessary delay in taking him before a committing magistrate; (ii) that he was arrested for “assault with a deadly weapon” but was charged in the indictment with “assault with intent to kill”; (iii) that he was never arraigned on the indictment; and (iv) that the trial judge was prejudiced against the petitioner. At the hearing on the petition, at which the petitioner was present, the presiding *655judge denied the relief and ordered remand of the petitioner to the House of Correction, but the court failed to fully comply with the requirements of a post conviction procedure rule.

Maryland Rule BK45 b specifies that the order of court “shall include or be accompanied by a short memorandum of the grounds of the petition, the questions, including specifically the federal and State rights involved, and the reasons for the action taken thereon.” And since the rule was not fully complied with, it is necessary to remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with subsection b of the rule.

*Application for leave to appeal granted and case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.*
Corette Plant Schematics Available in Hard Copy

at EPA Region 8 Headquarters.
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 4.2  


 
 
 

PCOM AG
  Mainz
  
  WKN:                   
  


Form of Global Certificate  


for
                bearer shares (without par value)

No.         —        

with profit entitlement from January 1, 2001 


    The holder of this global certificate is a shareholder in PCOM AG in Mainz in accordance with its Articles of Association with
              (              ) no par value shares. 



    
Mainz,              2001 


    
PCOM AG 


    
Supervisory Board                Management Board 



	do not execute	 	do not execute	 	do not execute
	(Chairman)	 	(Chairman)	 	(Member)
	

Control Signature:	
 	

 	
 	

 











QuickLinks


Exhibit 4.2
#### In re PROPOSED JUVENILE RULES.

No. 38294.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 17, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 2, 1970.

Marshall M. Criser, Palm Beach, Mark Hulsey, Jr., Jacksonville, Henry P. Tra-wick, Jr., Sarasota, and William J. Cas-tagna, Clearwater, for the petition.

Rufus O. Jefferson, Tallahassee, for the minority.

*822PER CURIAM.

The petition of The Florida Bar proposing rules of procedure governing proceedings in courts exercising original jurisdiction over juveniles was duly set for oral argument before the Court en banc and was orally argued April 10, 1969. Upon conclusion of the oral argument, this Court referred said petition to its Advisory Committee on Rules for further study and recommendation. The Advisory Committee met in the Supreme Court Building on September 19, 1969, with all members present except Judge Culver Smith of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit and Honorable Marion Sibley of Miami Beach, Florida. Following the meeting and deliberations of said committee, it unanimously recommended to this Court that the rules proposed for adoption constitute not only rules of procedure but many guidelines for the internal operation of juvenile courts.

The committee further suggested to the Court and the Court agrees that many of the proposed rules could be eliminated as being duplicates of rules appearing in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure or because they were concerned primarily with internal juvenile court administration over which this Court has no jurisdiction. The committee, after lengthy study, recommended to the Court that in view of the pending referendum of Article V of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. to be held November 5, 1970, which, if adopted, would result in a complete reorganization of the trial court system of this state, that said rules be referred back to The Florida Bar for further study.

It is therefore:

Ordered that the petition of The Florida Bar for the adoption of said juvenile court rules be and the same is hereby denied and said proposed rules are hereby referred back to The Florida Bar with the request that said rules be reconsidered and restudied subsequent to the referendum of November 5, 1970, heretofore referred to.

It is further:

Ordered that in the reconsideration of said rules the appropriate committee of The Florida Bar endeavor to eliminate therefrom all provisions relating to guidelines for the internal operations of said courts and confine such rules to those regulating procedures and to endeavor to make said rules, so far as applicable, consistent with the present Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court expresses its appreciation to the committees of The Florida Bar and the individual judges and attorneys who have given unstintingly of their time to this work.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
# Official Journal L 146/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 146 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6429 April 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 146

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6429 April 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Council Regulation (EU) 2021/703 of 26 April 2021 amending Regulations (EU) 2021/91 and (EU) 2021/92 as regards certain fishing opportunities for 2021 in Union and non-Union waters | 1 |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/704 of 26 February 2021 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/196 of the European Parliament and of the Council on additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America | 70 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/705 of 28 April 2021 amending Regulation (EC) No 333/2007 as regards the required number of incremental samples and the performance criteria for some methods of analysis (
  1
  ) | 73 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Council Regulation (EU) 2021/703 of 26 April 2021 amending Regulations (EU) 2021/91 and (EU) 2021/92 as regards certain fishing opportunities for 2021 in Union and non-Union waters

1

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/704 of 26 February 2021 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/196 of the European Parliament and of the Council on additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America

70

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/705 of 28 April 2021 amending Regulation (EC) No 333/2007 as regards the required number of incremental samples and the performance criteria for some methods of analysis (
  1
  )

1

73

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Meeting Documentation NEDA- CAP 1/13/2011 Date Regional Staff 

Contact Information (Name, email, phone #) 

Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.)

WritComProvDid subm

1/13/2011 

Jessica Gordon Gordon.jessica@

epa.gov

Jennifer Bohman Bohman.jennifer

@epa.gov

Katherine Sibold Sibold.katherine

@epa.gov

Rob Kaufman, VP, Koch Public Sectors  Don Clay, Consultant to Koch Industries  Laura Matthews, EHS Director, Invista Matt Iwiki, Counsel, Boeing  Mike Palazzolo, Director, EHS, ALCOA Jerry Fulmer, counsel, ALCOA  Linda Farrington, Manager, Corporate Air Issues, Eli Lilly Maxine Dewbury, Manager, Corporate Air Issues, Procter & Gamble  Al Collins, VP, EHS, Occidental Petroleum Corp.  Barbara Bankoff, Eli Lilly 

CBI deferral and call for information: (1) Whether to focus on industry sectors in making comments, or individual companies' experiences and sensitivities, means of protecting data, etc. (2) How best to use other EPA environmental programs as examples of alternative verification techniques (3) What level of specificity will EPA need with respect to examples of "sensitive CBI" inputs into calculations, the calculations themselves, and how that information can be used to derive sensitive information by domestic and international competitors (4) Detail needed to document/back-up assertions by 

the FTC in its comments and whether EPA is pursuing this with FTC itself (5) Whether suggestions about data capture through electronic reporting tool and utilizing confidentiality protocols is relevant in this rulemaking: I think we concluded this is an all or nothing proposition, so that if the data is collected this is issue is not relevant because EPA currently regards this information as "emissions related" and would not keep it CBI. 

No 
 Doug Deason, Manager 

Corp. Air Issues, ExxonMobil Corp.  Jan Laughlin, Manager, Corp Air Issues, ConocoPhillips Annabeth Reinert, NewPage  Steve Zuiss, Air Manager, Invista  Steve Woock, Weyerhaeuser Corp.  Melissa Antoine, Senior Environmental Engineer, Georgia Pacific Leslie Ritts, Counsel to NEDA/CAP
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2415

_____________________________
W ILLIAM S WAIM , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County

. Robert M. Foster , Judge

.
March 29 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , K ELSEY , and W INSOR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Carrie McMullen, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Daniel Krumbhol z, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.