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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         130,667
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               856,456
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    808,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       3,846,002
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         3,846,110
<LOANS>                                     31,821,887
<ALLOWANCE>                                    216,651
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,095,082
<DEPOSITS>                                  24,036,660
<SHORT-TERM>                                 4,431,565
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            734,564
<LONG-TERM>                                  7,401,403
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,674
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,485,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              39,095,082
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              1,148,722
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               68,494
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               147,302
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,364,518
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             574,442
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             929,246
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          435,272
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   33,806
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                157,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                282,711
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     282,711
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   170,651
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.35
<LOANS-NON>                                    361,860
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                75,834
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               195,702
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   13,305
<RECOVERIES>                                       448
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              216,651
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           216,651
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                 Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc.
               Certification of Chief Financial Officer
                              Pursuant to
             18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
              Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


    I, F. Dixon McElwee, Jr., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. on
Form 10-Q for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2003 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Frozen Food Express Industries,
Inc. A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. and will
be retained by Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



August 13, 2003                       /s/ F. Dixon McElwee, Jr.
                                      --------------------------
		                            F. Dixon McElwee, Jr.
                                      Chief Financial Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER
Appellate case name: Maurice Mitchell v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 45 8

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 1 6

- 85575

Trial court: 1 33rd District Court of Harris County

Proceeding pro se, a ppellant
, Maurice Mitchell
, has filed a motion to access the appella te record in this proceeding

. The motion is granted. Accordingly, t he trial court clerk is directed , no later than 10 days from the date of this order, to send a copy of the

one

- volume clerk’s record
, filed in this Court on June 28 , 201 9
, and the one

- volume supplemental clerk’s record filed in this Court on July 19 , 2019
, to appellant at the address provided in his motion : Maurice Mitchell TD J C ID # 648121 Allan B. Polunsky Unit 3 872 F

. M

. 3 5 0 South Livingston , Texas 7 73 51

. We further direct the trial court clerk
, no later than 15 days from the date of this order, to notify the Clerk of this Court the date on which delivery to appellant was made. Appellant also has filed a motion to extend the time to file his appellant’s brief. A reporter’s record has not been fi led , and the appellate record is not yet complete

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.1 (providing appellate record consists of clerk’s record and, if necessary to appeal, reporter’s record ). Accordingly , appellant’s brief is not yet due. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6 (provid ing date to file appellant’s brief is later of date clerk’s record or reporter’s record is filed). Accordingly, appellant’s motion to extend time is dismissed as moot

. The Clerk of this Court is directed to send to appellant a copy of Docketing Statement (Civil).It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____ Russell Lloyd

____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __ August 8, 2019

__
#### ZAYRE CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. Harry VEIOCK, Respondent.

No. 41473.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 17, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., dissents.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          41,151
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  390,892
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,950
<INVENTORY>                                     24,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               462,584
<PP&E>                                       5,097,195
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,164,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,536,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          444,790
<BONDS>                                        835,121
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,450
<PREFERRED>                                      7,600
<COMMON>                                       650,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     186,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,536,034
<SALES>                                        417,704
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               417,704
<CGS>                                          129,012
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  272,517
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                130,683
<INCOME-TAX>                                    44,254
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             86,429
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,429
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT NO. 99



Supplemental Segment Information

|In thousands                     | Three Months Ended
January 31, | Nine Months Ended 
January 31,
|-------------------------------- | ------------------------------ | ------------------------------
|                                 | 2001                           | 2000                          
|Orders Received:                 |                                |                               
|Sign Making & Specialty Graphics | $  63,838                      | $  70,228                     
|Apparel & Flexible Materials     | 47,894                         | 55,984                        
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing       | 21,791                         | 22,308                        
|                                 |                                |                               
|                                 | $133,523                       | $148,520                      
|                                 | =======                        | =======                       





|                                 | January 31,2001 | April 30,2000 | 
|-------------------------------- | --------------- | ------------- | 
|Backlog:                         |                 |               | 
|Sign Making & Specialty Graphics | $   1,836       | $   4,504     | 
|Apparel & Flexible Materials     | 36,011          | 34,897        | 
|Ophthalmic Lens Processing       | 3,975           | 5,844         | 
|                                 |                 |               | 
|                                 | $ 41,822        | $ 45,245      | 
|                                 | =======         | =======       |
# Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-45) (the “Act”), I hereby determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act.

                    You are authorized and directed to transmit this determination, accompanied by a report in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, to the Congress and to publish this determination in the                     *Federal Register.*

The suspension set forth in this determination shall take effect after you transmit this determination and the accompanying report to the Congress.

[FR Doc. 2018-14487

Billing code 4710-10-P
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 31776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14583]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--ASTM International Standards

    Notice is hereby given that on May 21, 2018, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), ASTM International (``ASTM'') has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its 
standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the 
purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing 
ASTM standards activities originating between February 2018 and May 7, 
2018 designated as work items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items 
along with a brief description of each, is available at http://www.astm.org.
    On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226).
    The last notification with the Department was filed on February 21, 
2018. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on April 11, 2018 (83 15627).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics Unit, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-14583 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
1 EPA Region 9 SIP COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST

To evaluate compliance with 40 CFR 51, Appendix V

Submittal Date September 24 , 201 3

District Name Placer County APC D

Date Reviewed November 22 , 2013

EPA Reviewer R. Marinaro Key:

C = Complete

I = Incomplete

N/A = Not Applicable To Rule

O = Material Missing

RULE #: 240

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS (per Appendix V, Section 2.1)

(a) Submittal letter from Governor/designee C

(b) Evidence of adoption C

(c) State/District legal authority to adopt C

(d1) Copy of actual rule/plan C

(d2) Rule changes indicated by underline/cross

- out C

(e) Proof that action met procedural requirements C

(f) Copy of public notice C

(g) Certification that hearing fulfilled public notice C

(h) Public comments & agency response C

TECHNICAL SUPPORT (per Appendix V, Section 2.2)

(a) Regulated pollutants identified C

(b) Affected sources & attainment status identifie C

(c) Rule/plan emissions impact C

(d) Attainment, PSD & other required demonstration N/A

(e) Modeling support as appropriate N/A

(f) Reliance on continuous emission reductions C

(g) Evidence of limits & other needed requirements C

(i) Justification for deviation from EPA policy N/A

OVERALL COMPLETENESS C



### Notes: :
#### HAMILTON MANFG. CO. *v.*POLL.

Patents — Infringement — Injunction — Jurisdiction — Federal Courts.

Decree dismissing suit to enjoin infringement of patent for want of jurisdiction, but without prejudice to right of plaintiff to bring suit in Federal court, is affirmed, on appeal.

Appeal from Allegan; Warner (Glenn E.), J., presiding.

Submitted January 12, 1932.

(Docket No. 109, Calendar No. 36,226.)

Decided April 4, 1932.

Rehearing denied June 6, 1932,

Bill by the Hamilton Manufacturing Company, a Michigan corporation, against Louis Poll and others, doing business under the assumed name of the Holland Celery Planter Company, to enjoin the infringement oí;, a patent. Bill dismissed, without prejudice *243to bring suit in Federal court. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Leo W. Hoffman*and *Glare E. Hoffman,*for plaintiff.

*Diekema, Gross & Ten Gate,*for defendants.

Fead, J.

This case was originally heard as upon bill for injunction to restrain infringement of a patent, and was so reviewed by this court in 253 Mich. 324, and remanded for more testimony. Further hearing appears to have been upon the same issue, as no other contention was mentioned in the well-considered opinion of the circuit court holding that jurisdiction is in the Federal court.

Counsel for plaintiff concede that the State court has no jurisdiction in an action for infringement of a patent, but now claim that the suit is to enjoin violation and to enforce specific performance of an agreement, in the assignment of patent, to transfer improvements to plaintiff. The bill contained such a prayer.

In the former opinion this court said:

> ‘ ‘ The record is that defendants have no improvement. ’ ’

The preponderance of the testimony taken on remand was that the device complained of is not an improvement on the patent and was not an invention by any defendant but was prior art.

The decree dismissing. the bill for want of jurisdiction, but without prejudice to right of plaintiff to bring suit in Federal court, is affirmed, with costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
#### WAITMAN BOOTH, d. b. *vs*WILLIAM L. JUMP, p. b.

The entry of a judgment by a justice of the peace aided by reference to the sum stated in the margin.

Certiorari. Record. Action of debt; sum demanded $43 81. After hearing the plaintiff had judgment, which was thus entered “ $43 81. Judgment for the above sum.”

*Frame,*for exceptant,

objected to the judgment for want of certainty. The entry was “judgment for the above sum.” He said the act of assembly requires the justice to set down the judgment, and the *amount*thereof. This entry specifies no amount, except by reference to another part of the record.

*Comegys.*

This entry of judgment is sufficiently certain. The sum demanded is stated to be $43 81, and judgment is entered for the above sum. The entry in the margin of the judgment also is $43 81.

*Frame.*

The question still recurs, whether the act does not require that the judgment entry should contain *within itself,*and without reference to any thing else, the certain amount for which judgment is rendered. The justice shall make a fair entry in his docket of “ the amount of the judgment, and for which party.”

*Comegys,*for plaintiff below.

*Frame,*for defendant below.

*The Court*

sustained the judgment, considering the sum stated in the *margin*a part of the judgment entry.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Annual Report of Berthel Growth & Income Trust I (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
J. Berthel, Chief Executive Officer of Berthel Fisher & Company Planning, Inc.,
the Trust Advisor of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Company's 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 results of operations of the
     Company.


March 9, 2006                               /s/  Thomas J. Berthel
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Thomas J. Berthel
                                                 President and
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Berthel Fisher & Company
                                                 Planning, Inc., Trust Advisor
                                                 Berthel Growth & Income Trust I
# MAS human capital category and HCaTS comparison chart

Under the human capital category, we offer two acquisition solutions that can accommodate any simple or complex requirement through the entire human capital life cycle. The human capital life cycle consists of the phases an employee experiences from the recruitment process through departure. It connects all facets of human capital management — and provides a practical, systemic, and dynamic approach tied to the needs of your business and customers.

Our Multiple Award Schedule contracts include specific HR service providers with experience in each of the human-capital life cycles while leveraging a vendor pool that can help you meet socioeconomic goals.

Human Capital and Training Services, also known as HCaTS,and HCaTS Small Business are governmentwide, multiple-award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, or MA-IDIQ contracts, that provide flexible, innovative solutions for complex professional services using FAR 16.505 ordering procedures.

## Core disciplines

## Tell us what you think

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Multiple award schedule-  Overview 
-  Help with MAS buying 
-  Help with MAS contracts to sell to government 
-  Crosswalk of legacy MAS SINs to current SINs 
-  MAS news 
-  MAS announcements 
-  Templates for MAS offerors to use 
-  SIN-specific guidance for buyers    -  Buying professional services through MAS 
  -  FPISC FAST-41 project basic ordering agreements 
  -  Guidance when using ODCs for SIN 541810ODC 
  -  MAS human capital category and HCaTS comparison 
  -  No-cost contracting guidance for SIN 561920 
  -  Ordering guide for SIN 611TRAINAW 
  -  Program evaluation services subgroup 
  -  Quality Partnership Council 
  -  Sample language for commercial lease terms 
  -  Sample language for commercial rental terms 
  -  Sample language for furniture requirements 
  -  Sample terms for hardware maintenance (SIN 811212) 
  -  Sample terms for hardware repair (SIN 811212)  
  -  Space launch integrated services 
  -  Get records management help
EXHIBIT NO. 15











To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Gerber Scientific, Inc.







|Re: | Registration Statements on Form S-8,
|--- | ------------------------------------
|    | File No. 2-93695, No. 33-58668,     
|    | No. 333-26177, No. 333-42879,       
|    | No. 333-81447, No. 333-83463 and    
|    | No. 333-39754                       
|    |                                     
|    | Registration Statement on Form S-3, 
|    | File No. 33-58670                   
|    |                                     

With respect to the subject Registration Statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated November 29, 2001 related to our review of interim financial information.



Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act, such reports are not considered a part of a Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.











/ s / KPMG LLP





KPMG LLP









Hartford, Connecticut
December 13, 2001
#### Nathaniel JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-769.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 21, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.