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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         143,254
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  556,630
<ALLOWANCES>                                   119,470
<INVENTORY>                                  1,666,832
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,525,192
<PP&E>                                       5,603,441
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,196,182
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,397,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,072,293
<BONDS>                                      4,373,008
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       484,601
<OTHER-SE>                                     648,915
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,397,621
<SALES>                                      5,426,260
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,426,260
<CGS>                                        4,540,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,540,722
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               747,659
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             352,403
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (105,509)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (54,971)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (50,538)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (1,394,937)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,445,475)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 183

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

May 26, 1993.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 2244) making supplemental appropriations,

transfers, and rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and for other purposes. The first reading of

the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. The amendments printed in the report of

the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall

be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee

of the Whole. The bill as so amended shall be considered as

the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under
2

HRES 183 EH

the five-minute rule. All points of order against the bill, as

so amended, are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have

been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as

ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

SEC. 2. All points of order against the bill (H.R. 2118)

making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1993, and for other purposes, and against

its consideration are waived. The following amendment to the

bill shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the

Committee of the Whole: page 12, strike line 20 and all that

follows through page 13, line 19.

Attest:

Clerk.
S 10-100428-048 


III 


DENVER 


TH. MILl HIGH CITY 

~r 

DENVER <­

INTERNATIONAL 

AI R.'OItT 

Department of A\liallon 

Airport Office Buildin, . 8500 Pella BOulevard 

Denver, Colorado 80249 

. 	303.342.2201 

www.f1yOenver.com 

DEPT OF m'\NSPORT/~TION 

DDC!<~TS 

April 20, 2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. laHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT·OST-2010-_ 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

Thank you for the opportunity to express Denver International Airport's 

support for the application for antitrust Immunity and proposed joint 

business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines (AA/JL). 

The proposed alliance between these two airlines will enhance the 

benefits of the Department's Open Skies policy by solidifying U.S. - Japan 

Open Skies and by serving as a foundation for further liberalization across 

Asia. 

We encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this 

application. Approval for these alliances will have a positive impact on air. 

travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing options 

and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit from the 

competition afforded by air alliances. 

Thank you for your attention' and consideration of this application. We 

urge you to approve this application. 

Sincerely, 

Kim Day 

Manager of Aviation
256 La. 860

#### Harold TYLER et al., d/b/a Homer Livestock Commission Company v. R. D. ELSTON.

No. 50773.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: R. D. Elston applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Bossier. 236 So.2d 658.

Writ refused. No error in the judgment of which relator complains.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 131 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 131

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 17, 1993.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 64) setting forth the congressional budget 
for the United States Government for the fiscal years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 
and 1998. The first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed 
with. All points of order against the concurrent resolution and against its 
consideration are waived. General debate shall be confined to the congressional 
budget and shall not exceed ten hours, with seven hours (including four hours on 
the subject of economic goals and policies) equally divided and controlled by 
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, two 
hours controlled by Representative Mfume of Maryland, and one hour controlled by 
Representative Solomon of New York. After general debate the Committee of the 
Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of the concurrent 
resolution shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2021270EN.01000101.xml

| 7.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2019-2020 SESSION

Sittings of 13 to 16 January 2020

The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 239, 18.6.2021.

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
263 La. 96

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Welton BROWN v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 52833.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 17, 1972.

In re: Welton Brown applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writs denied. In view of the reasons assigned by the trial judge, the showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
1:19PM 

07/17/12 

Accrual Basis 

Underhill Holding LLC 

Balance Sheet 

As of December 31, 2011 

ASSETS 

Current Assets 

Checking/Savings 

Chase- (1117) 

Chase - Malnt (1125) 

Total Checking/Savings 

Total Current Assets 

Fixed Assets 

Cessna 

Piper 

Total Fixed Assets 

Other Assets 

Closing Costs 

Investment - LIMA 

Security Deposit 

Shareholder Loans 

Total Other Assets 

TOTAL ASSETS 

LIABILITIES & EQUITY 

Liabilities 

Long Term Liabilities 

Loan Payable - First Bank #1 

Loan Payable First Bank #2 

Total Long Term Liabilities 

Total Liabilities 

Equity 

Partner - Andrew (66.667%) 

Partner - Melissa (33.333%) 

Retained Earnings 

Net Income 

Total Equity 

TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 

Dec 31,11 

4,163.59 

571.13 

4,734.72 

4,734.72 

1 ,221,333.33 

279,518.09 

1 ,500,851.42 

6,974.50 

114,437.50 

7,750.00 

10,326.50 

139,488.50 

1 ,645,07 4.64 

291 '114.25 

175,219.24 

466,333.49 

466,333.49 

1 ,536,434.55 

32,908.94 

-362,116.09 

-28,486.25 

1,178,741.15 

1 ,645,07 4.64 

Page 1 
1:19PM 

07/17/12 

Accrual Basis 

Underhill Holding LLC 

Profit & Loss 

January through December 2011 

Ordinary Income/Expense 

Income 

Fees 

Total Income 

Expense 

Advertising 

Bank Service Charges 

Computer & Internet 

Dues and Subscriptions 

Equipment Rental 

Fuel/Parts 

Insurance 

Interest Expense 

Landing Fees 

Licenses and Permits 

Merchant Bank Fees 

Office Supplies 

Operating Expenses 

Outside Labor 

Parking Expense 

Pilot Fees 

Professional Fees 

Reimbursement 

Rent 

Repairs 

Security 

Shipping & Delivery 

Taxes 

Telephone 

Training 

Travel & Ent 

Utilities 

Total Expense 

Net Ordinary Income 

Net Income 

Jan· Dec 11 

473,695.09 

473,695.09 

3,167.00 

1 ,571.42 

375.00 

555.20 

2,345.00 

38,375.75 

25,645.15 

29,831.96 

14,635.66 

85.00 

2,990.25 

2,211.37 

206,294.75 

16,772.83 

22.00 

48,880.00 

6,255.67 

5,315.50 

29,226.00 

22,884.39 

272.78 

1,810.53 

25.00 

14,889.27 

5,250.00 

22,394.21 

99.65 

502,181.34 

-28,486.25 

-28,486.25 

Page 1
# Official Journal C 120A/6 Ap

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 120A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 616 April 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 120A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 616 April 2018

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 120 A/01 | Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security — Publication of a vacancy for a Director function (Grade AD 14) — Directorate ‘Security’ (DG HR.DS), in Brussels (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2018/10379 | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2018/C 120 A/01

Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security — Publication of a vacancy for a Director function (Grade AD 14) — Directorate ‘Security’ (DG HR.DS), in Brussels (Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations) — COM/2018/10379

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
256 La. 853

#### Mrs. Blanche Mae CHARLES et al. v. TOWN OF JEANERETTE et al.

No. 50708.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: Mrs. Blanche Mae Charles et al. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Iberia. 234 So.2d 794.

Writ refused. The errors assigned in this Court were not raised in the Court of Appeal and therefore cannot be considered. After consideration of the opinion of the Court of Appeal, we cannot say that the result reached is incorrect.
#### Robert L. CONEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43260.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 15, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00844-CV

In re Summer Benford

Q. W., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-FM-18-001770, THE HONORABLE DUSTIN M. HOWELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R T O S H O W C A U S E

PER CURIAM

This is a contempt proceeding ancillary to the appeal of Q. W. The subject of this 

proceeding is Summer Benford, appellant’s attorney.

Appellant filed her notice of appeal on November 4, 2019, and her brief was due 

on December 23, 2019. On January 14, 2020, we ordered counsel to file appellant’s brief no 

later than January 27, 2020. To date, appellant’s brief has not been filed. 

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Summer Benford shall appear in person before 

this Court on Friday, February 21, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., in the Third Court of Appeals courtroom, 

located on the first floor of the Price Daniel, Sr. Building, 209 West 14th Street, in Austin, Travis

County, Texas, to show cause why she should not be held in contempt and have sanctions 
2

imposed for her failure to obey our January 14, 2020 order. This order to show cause will be 

withdrawn and Benford will be relieved of her obligation to appear before this Court as ordered 

above if the Clerk of this Court receives appellant’s brief on or before February 19, 2020.

It is ordered on February 10, 2020.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana
### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 01 38 -C V

______________________________
IN R E : R O W E N A J
. D A N IE LS

Orig inal Habe as Corpus Proce eding

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Row e na J. Da nie ls ha s fi le d a pe tit ion se e kin g ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f f

ro m th is C ourt . Sh e is prese ntly incar cer ated in the Hopkins County J ail for six months afte r having be en held in conte mpt by the 62nd J udicial District Court. I t appea rs from he r petition that the trial court e ntere d an orde r disbarring Daniels from the prac tice of law in 2003. The State Ba r/Commis sion fo r Law y er Discipline soug ht and obtained a n order of conte mpt based on her violation of that order
. Da nie ls r a ise s se ve ra l is su e s, e a c h o f whic h is ba se d u po n a lle g e d s ho rt c omi ng s in the fa c ts p ro v en atth e c o n t em p th ea ri n g. As attac hments to her petition, Daniels has provided us with a copy of seve ral of the rele vant documents, includingthe motion for contempt and or der of contempt. S

ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.7. Howeve r, there is no recor d from the he aringon the contempt proc eeding , and it appea rs that none has bee n reque sted. T h e r el at o r h as th e b urd en t o es t ab l i s hth atth e e v i d en ce d o es n o ts u p p o rtth e l o we r c o urt 's
c o n te mp t o r d er, Ex parte Barlow , 899 S.W .2d 791, 794 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1995, orig . proce eding ), and to c onclusively show the entitlement to the writ, In rePruit t , 6 S.W .3d 363, 364 (Te x . App.—B eaumont 1999, orig . proce eding ). Thus, the re lator must bring forwa rd an adequate re cord to e stablish the invalidity of the orde r of whic h he complains. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52 .7 ; In re Lausch , 1 7 7 S
. W
. 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 5 0 , 1 5 5

– 5 6 (T ex . Ap p . — Ho u s t o n[ 1 s tDi s t . ] 2 0 0 5 , o ri g. proce eding ). In revie wingan orde r of c ontempt, this C ourt must take into consideration the entire3

rec ord, includingevidenc e off ere d at the conte mpt hearing , to determine whether due proc ess has been a ccor ded the r elator . E xpa rteCar

dwe ll , 416 S.W .2d 382, 384 (Tex. 1967) (orig . proce eding ); Ex pa rteEl mo re , 16 1 Te x. 58 5, 34 2 S. W.2 d 5 58 , 5 61 (1 96 1) (o ri g . p ro c e e din g ); Ex parte Cox , 479 S.W .2d 110, 113 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1972, orig . proce eding ); Ex parte Fie dler , 446 S.W .2d 698, 700 (Tex. Civ. App.—S an Antonio 1969, orig . proce eding ). In the abse nce of

an ade quate r ecor d to establish t h e invalidity of the orde r, and in the absenc e of a

complete r eporte r' s rec ord, this Court will presume that the evidenc e supported the trial court' s contempt judg ment. Se e Ex pa rteSa v e lle , 398 S.W .2d 918, 921 (Tex. 1966). We d e ny the pe tit ion

fo r wri t of

ha be a s c or pu s.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: Dec ember 4, 2008 Date D ecide d: Dec ember 5, 2008
Exhibit 32



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

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Western Sierra Mining Corp. (the
"Company")on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
Chaffee, 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/ Michael M. Chaffee
                                            Michael Chaffee
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            May 10, 2004





                            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 Western Sierra Mining Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Denis
Atkins, Chief Financial 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/  Dennis Atkins
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                             Dennis Atkins
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             May 10, 2004
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-193-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             436
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  274,819
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,679
<INVENTORY>                                     19,920
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               296,925
<PP&E>                                       3,475,804
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,165,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,720,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          524,803
<BONDS>                                        593,347
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       448,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,632
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,720,057
<SALES>                                        288,760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               288,760
<CGS>                                           97,888
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  190,025
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,925
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 84,810
<INCOME-TAX>                                    33,527
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             51,283
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  3,100
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,183
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### Freddie Lee LENWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-749.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 30, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 15, 1973.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, Bra-denton, for appellant; Freddie Lee Len-wood, pro se.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LILES and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

MANN, C. J., concurs specially with opinion.

MANN, Chief Judge

(concurring specially).

Lenwood appeals from denial of his motion to reduce sentence. Nowhere in the trial court did he allege, as he does in his brief, that nine of the ten past convictions considered by the trial judge in imposing a maximum sentence were invalid because Lenwood was not represented by counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799. On the record now before us the plea of guilty is amply substantiated as voluntary. Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.2d 1969, 228 So.2d 446. Whether United States v. Tucker, 1972, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592, affords Lenwood a right to have his sentence reconsidered is a question which must first be presented to the trial judge. CrPR 3.850, 33 F.S.A. is available for this purpose. United States v. Tucker does indeed suggest that the trial judge should reconsider the extent to which his sentence was based upon invalid convictions. I would emphasize, however, that circumstances un*324derlying those convictions may be considered in arriving at a just punishment for this offense. See North Carolina v. Pearce, 1969, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed. 2d 656.

Lenwood still has the right to raise by petition the arguments submitted on this appeal which have not been ruled on by the trial court. Whether one who has been involved in nine alleged felonies can expect a lighter sentence to result is, however, another question. If Lenwood should pursue this matter the trial judge would be barred by *Tucker*from *presuming*that where there is smoke there is fire. He is not precluded from following the smoke to its suspected source. If *in fact,*though not in law, Lenwood is in the habit of felony his sentence is not too severe.
#### Charles HENSLEY et al., Appellants, v. The PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK, a corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-993.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 28, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Richard B. Keating, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.