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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED AS PART OF THE QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          62,051
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,461)
<INVENTORY>                                     51,275
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               178,187
<PP&E>                                         225,717
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,355)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 825,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          134,312
<BONDS>                                        210,271
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    207,000
<COMMON>                                        93,283
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   825,336
<SALES>                                        185,581
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               185,581
<CGS>                                          113,541
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  271,162
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (74,066)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       358
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (74,424)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (12,776)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (87,200)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.42)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302(a) OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual
report is being prepared;b)
    
    designed such internal controls over financial reporting, or caused such internal
controls over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;c)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ BRIAN V. TURNERBrian V. TurnerChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 4 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 4

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 5, 1993.
    Resolved, That the Clerk be instructed to inform the President of the United 
States that the House of Representatives has elected Thomas S. Foley, a 
Representative from the State of Washington, Speaker; and Donnald K. Anderson, a 
citizen of the State of California, Clerk of the House of Representatives of the 
One Hundred Third Congress.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Chester R. STRICKLAND v. COURT REPORTER, Criminal District Court, Section “H”, Parish of Orleans.

No. 62642.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Chester R. Strickland, applying for writs of habeas corpus, certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
# C_2020247EN.01003001.xml

| 27.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/30

---

Action brought on 19 May 2020 — Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

(Case T-301/20)

(2020/C 247/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE (Ain Sukhna, Egypt), Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (Ain Sukhna) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 of 1 April 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt, in as far as it relates to the applicants (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 of 1 April 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt, in as far as it relates to the applicants (1);

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for establishing Hengshi’s cost of production and the SG&A and profit for the calculation of Hengshi’s constructed normal value violates Article 2(5) as well as Articles 2(3), 2(6), 2(11), 2(12) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for establishing Hengshi’s cost of production and the SG&A and profit for the calculation of Hengshi’s constructed normal value violates Article 2(5) as well as Articles 2(3), 2(6), 2(11), 2(12) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting and underselling margins with regard to the applicants violates Articles 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting and underselling margins with regard to the applicants violates Articles 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.

---

(1)  OJ 2020, L 108, p. 1.

---
#### Cleon Donald WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-497.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 15, 1972.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

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

LILES, Judge.

Appellant, Cleon Donald Walker, was convicted of the charge of being an habitual criminal. Following his conviction by jury on February 1, 1963, appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment. In May 1971, appellant filed his Rule 1.850, 33 F.S.A., motion to vacate judgment and sentence based upon the fact that in the two *182prior convictions he was not represented by counsel.

In March 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, was decided providing that all defendants must be represented by counsel and subsequent case law provides that *Gideon*is retroactive.

We believe the trial judge was in error in summarily dismissing defendant’s Rule 1.850 motion and we remand the cause with directions that the trial judge hold an evi-dentiary hearing with petitioner represented by counsel and make a determination of fact as to whether petitioner was properly convicted pursuant to *Gideon*of the two prior crimes.

Reversed and remanded.

PIERCE, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 21, 2009 

d1214 

Order 

 

December 21, 2009 

139019(29) 

RONALD SEATON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 139019 

 COA: 289166 

Ingham CC: 07-001788-AA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

28, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously.
#### SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner, v. Nathan D. FORD, Jr., Respondent.

No. 42809.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 15, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1972,

Certiorari denied. 265 So.2d 395.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ, concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with the accompanying quarterly report of GIANT GROUP, LTD. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,2003 (the “Quarterly Report”), I, Burt Sugarman, Chief Executive Officer 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 Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

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

 

Dated: August 14, 2003 

 

/s/    BURT SUGARMAN

----
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Major Lee FORTENBERRY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 54271.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 4, 1974.

In re: Major Lee Fortenberry applying for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Granted. Hearing ordered.

SANDERS, C. J., dissents from granting of this writ in accordance with his dissent in State v. Williams, La., 275 So.2d 738.

SUMMERS, J., dissents from the granting of this writ. In my view the holding in State v. Williams, 275 So.2d 738 (La. 1973) is erroneous.
# Official Journal L 155/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.155.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 155 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5411 June 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2011.155.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 155

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5411 June 2011

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 544/2011 of 10 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the data requirements for active substances (1) | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 545/2011 of 10 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the data requirements for plant protection products (1) | 67 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 546/2011 of 10 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards uniform principles for evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products (1) | 127 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2011 of 8 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards labelling requirements for plant protection products (1) | 176 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 544/2011 of 10 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the data requirements for active substances (1)

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 545/2011 of 10 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the data requirements for plant protection products (1)

67

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 546/2011 of 10 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards uniform principles for evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products (1)

127

*

Commission Regulation (EU) No 547/2011 of 8 June 2011 implementing Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards labelling requirements for plant protection products (1)

176

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| 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.
#### NATHANIEL WOLFE *vs.*BENJAMIN WHITEMAN.

On a note payable on or after sight, the act of limitation does not begin to run until *si*demand is made.

A presentment with a request of payment, or a new note, is a good demand.

This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, dated' August 29th, 1837, payable thirty days *after*sight. The defence was the act of limitation, and set off of a book account, beginning in 1825, and ending in 1830 ; to which the plaintiff replied the act of limitation. The plaintiff proved the execution of the note and a presentment, about August 20th, 1843, for payment or a new note,, with a view to prevent the running of the act.

*Gray,*for plaintiff.

*Wales,*for defendant,

*Mr. Wales,*for defendant,

contended that this was not a lawful presentment, the demand being in the alternative? that such presentment avowedly for the purpose of saving the bar of the statute, *implied*a previous presentment at or about the date of the note, as the danger of such bar could only exist on such supposition ; and if the jury believed there had been such previous demand, at so early a date, the note was now barred.

*Mr. Gray,*for plaintiff,

replied that this note_bein^^payable thirty days *after sight,*the cause of action' did not ©ee-úr, and the statute could not begin to run until a demand ; that there was.no evidence of a presentment previous to August, 1843 ; and that the demand for payment, *or*a new note, was a lawful presentment: of which opinion was the court; and the matters of discount being clearly barred by the statute, the plaintiff had a verdict for the amount of the note with interest from the time of presentment. *(Chitty on Cont.*311; 2 *Taunt.*323.)
#### Curtis Lamar TIMMONS v. STATE.

No. 37919.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 214 So.2d 11.
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 the Annual Report of Integrated Data Corp (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David C. Bryan, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive
officer) and principal financial officer 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 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.


Date:  September 28, 2004      By:  /s/ David C. Bryan
                                    ------------------
                                    David C. Bryan
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal executive officer and
                                     principal financial officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Integrated Data Corp. and
will be retained by Integrated Data Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Edward A. ROBERGE, Petitioner, v. L. L. WAINWRIGHT, etc., Respondent.

No. 72-244.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 7, 1972.

Edward A. Roberge, pro se.

MANN, Judge.

Roberge seeks delayed appellate review pursuant to Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla. 1969, 229 So.2d 239. He admits that the trial court advised him of his right to appeal, but he does not assert that he directed his appointed counsel to initiate an appeal. He does state ambiguously that he was “under the impression that his counsel (Public Defender) did in fact file Notice of Appeal or Motion for a New Trial.” It is thus not clear whether the fault lies with Roberge for failing affirmatively to indicate that he desired an appeal or whether the fault lies with the Public Defender, in which case the delayed appeal would be obtainable. Accordingly, the present petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied without prejudice.

LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
OFFICE OFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN

umn~titutiimal 3ct ragulaititq the oollootlon of dabte protactad clerks c,r courts actlni; uncor it.1‘=tu oorraat rule la sucolnotly atst3d ba ,53x.

hi?. :

*iii otllcar rb, withaat authority of law. aoU3ata taasm or oxeos8ivr 138s .tiy 5s oompsllrd’ to raimburso th 

### parrron rxm whom

### the money MI raoeivrd. Zut iesa poti volunur’l3.y 4nd rrith full xnowl~ribr of 

### the facts, though **w&r a**  slataka **oi law,**  canaat under aottlod ~:rinol~lre, be rocavsr~C.* (3A :sr. Jur. L76; 32 :3x. Jur. ) 739; .d,rsh

### llsld vs. z-t. .sorth :iatl. :lzmk. 83 :0x. 452, 18 t:i 743; County of Gdvo3tm Tn. Cortim, L9 hr. 279, 303; at’ Of iiaurton '13. i'lOEUI?, 76 Tax. 365, 13 2% 266. )
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, August 30, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Thursday, August 30, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523, or write TAP Office, 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post comments to the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.

Dated: July 2, 2018.

Terrie English,

Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2018-14638 Filed 7-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00607-CR

James Robert Harle

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1200063D)

June 25, 2015

Opinion by Justice Gardner

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Anne Gardner__________

 Justice Anne Gardner