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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          25,848
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  202,666
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (6,785)
<INVENTORY>                                    180,910
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               421,861
<PP&E>                                         390,403
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (39,925)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 866,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          276,787
<BONDS>                                        164,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           346
<OTHER-SE>                                     373,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   866,884
<SALES>                                        874,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               874,823
<CGS>                                          630,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  816,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,765)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,353
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,197
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,888
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,309
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,309
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14


</TABLE>
Casey	O’Connell

9072	N	6060E	Rd

Manteno	IL,	60950

708-793-2017

Casey2k3@gmail.com

10/29/2015

Petition	for	Section	333	Exemption

I	hereby	formally	request	FAA	authorization	for	Casey	O’Connell (hereafter	“PETITIONER”)	to	

operate	a	UAS	for	civil	(non-governmental)	purposes	other	than	for	recreation	or	hobby.

PETITIONER	requests	to	be	exempted	from		14	CFR	§§	61.23(a)	and	(c),	61.101(e)(4)	and	(5),	

61.113(a),	61.315(a),	91.7(a),	91.119(c),	91.121,	91.151(a)(1),	91.405(a),	91.407(a)(1),	

91.409(a)(1)	and	(2),	and	91.417(a)	and	(b),	to	the	extent	necessary	to	allow	PETITIONER	to	

operate	a	UAS	to	perform	aerial	data	collection,	including	but	not	limited	to	aerial	imaging.		

PETITIONER	requests	this	exemption	for	its	use	of	UAS	both	within	and	without	the	United	States.		

PETITIONER	frequently	travels	abroad	for	photographic	endeavors	and	seeks	to	use	UAS	in	

accordance	with	all	laws	of	foreign	and	domestic	governmental	authorities.

PETITIONER	requests this	permission	to	pursue	its	use	of	UAS	models	including	DJI	Phantom	1,	DJI	

Phantom	2,	DJI	Phantom	3,	DJI	Inspire	,	3D	Robotics	IRIS+,	3D	Robotics	Solo,	3D	Robotics	X8+,	and	

3D	Robotics	X8- M,	or	other	similar	commercially-available	and	widely-available	UAS	models.

PETITIONER	will	conduct	its	use	of	UAS	in	a	manner	which	will	minimize	risk	to	the	NAS,	other	

persons,	and	property.		The	following	procedures	will	be	followed:	(1)	UAS	will	be	given	a	pre-flight	

inspection	before	each	flight	to	examine	air-worthiness,	(2)	UAS	will	not	be	materially	altered	from	

commercial	specifications	except	for	battery,	prop,	and	battery	alterations,	(3)	UAS	will	not	be	

flown	over	people,	(4)	UAS	will	always	be	flown	within	line	of	sight	to	operator(s)	pursuant	to	

Section	333(b)(1),	(5)	UAS	will	never	reach	altitudes	over	exceeding	those	allowed,	(6)	UAS	will	

never	reach	speeds	exceeding	50	mph,	(7)	operator	will	perform	a	pre-flight	visual	inspection	of	the	

NAS	to	determine	nearby	dangers	such	as	low-flying	manned	or	unmanned	aerial	vehicles,	power	

lines,	and	buildings,	(8)	UAS	will	be	checked	for	flight	stability,	proper	connection	to	remote	

control,	and	proper	performance	at	a	very	low	altitude	before	reaching	the	NAS,	and	(9)	nonparticipating	spectators	will	be	asked	to	stay	a	safe	distance	away	from	the	flight	path	of	the	UAS	

and	its	landing	location.		PETITIONER	is	an	experienced	UAS	operator	with	more	than	one	year	of	

experience.

This	petition	will	benefit	the	public	interest.	 PETITIONER	will	provide	imagery	which	is not	

otherwise	possible	to	be	captured	without	the	use	of	a	UAV,	which	will	assist	companies	to	which	

the	images	may	be	sold,	will	enhance	the	public	understanding	of	nature	photographed	by	the	UAS,	
and	PETITIONER	will	be	able	to	provide	UAS	safety	information	to	those	with	whom	he	or	she	

comes	in	contact.

Please	grant	the	requested	exemption	under	Section	333.

Casey	O’Connell
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 91 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 91

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     February 18, 1993.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and they are hereby, elected 
to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service: Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin; 
Sherwood L. Boehlert, New York; and Jim Saxton, New Jersey.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### In the Matter of Joseph Garcia, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing Unit, New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[656 NYS2d 951]

Carpinello, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Chemung County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

While an inmate at Southport Correctional Facility in Chemung County, petitioner was served with three misbehavior reports. In the first, he was charged with engaging in an unhygienic act and assaulting staff when he spit at a correction officer who brought him medications. In the second, he was charged with engaging in an unhygienic act and assaulting staff when he threw a liquid substance which smelled like urine at a correction officer, hitting him in the face and upper body. In the third, he was charged with refusing a direct order and possessing a weapon when he refused to come out of his cell to be moved, necessitating the use of chemical agents to remove him, or to drop a pen he had clenched in his hand in a menacing manner. Following a disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all of the charges except for possessing a weapon.* He then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding contending, *inter alia,*that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence and that he was denied effective employee assistance.

Initially, we find that the misbehavior reports, coupled with the testimony of the correction officers who authored these reports and those who were present during the incidents in question, provide substantial evidence supporting the administrative determination. Although petitioner and seven inmate witnesses gave testimony contrary to that of the correction of*827fleers, this conflicting testimony merely presented a question of credibility for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see, Matter of Ayala v Coombe,*227 AD2d 752).

Moreover, we reject petitioner’s claim that he was denied effective employee assistance. Although petitioner maintains that his assistant failed to provide him with all of the documentation he requested, the assistant testified at the hearing that he provided petitioner with everything petitioner had asked for, including the use of force report. In view of this, as well as petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by his assistant’s alleged deficiencies, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim *(see, Matter of Ventimiglia v Coombe,*233 AD2d 610, 611; *Matter of Gonzalez v Mann,*186 AD2d 876, 877). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claim that the Hearing Officer was biased, and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

*

 Petitioner pleaded guilty to refusing a direct order.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 458 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 175
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 458

                          [Report No. 103-554]

  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4602) making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 21, 1994

    Mr. Gordon, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4602) making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That during consideration of the bill (H.R. 4602) making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, 
all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: 
beginning on page 80, line 10, through line 19.
                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 175

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 458

                          [Report No. 103-554]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

  Waiving certain points of order against the bill (H.R. 4602) making 
appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies 
 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             June 21, 1994

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
  /s/ Marshall O. LarsenName:
    Marshall O. LarsenTitle:
    Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer /s/ Scott E. KuechleName:
    Scott E. KuechleTitle:
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### VINCENT W. MOORE and Ann his wife, late ANN WHITAKER *vs.*JAMES WHITAKER.

A marriage void because contracted within the prohibited degrees,, can be confirmed by a subsequent act of assembly.

Debt on a guardian bond, for a distributive balance. Narr. Plea denying the marriage of plaintiffs; or that it was lawful.

*51The plaintiffs married within the degrees prohibited by the act of assembly *(Digest*400.) The legislature by a special act passed before bringing this action, confirmed the marriage.

The question was, whether the parties were legally married at the commencement, of this suit, the marriage being origins, "ly void, and it not being shown that the wife joined in or assented to the application, which was subsequently made to the legislature to confirm the marriage. It was insisted also, that the wife;, being c*n infant, was not competent to bind herself by such proceeding-.

Per *cmiam.*

The disability was a statutory one, a¡r<? is removed by statute. The legislature has the power to declare what shall be valid marriages. They can annul marriages already existing — a fortiori, they can render valid marriages, which when they - sh placo were against law. They can exercise the power of marria.o?, ,;r delegate it to others. The whole subject is one of legislative regulation; and the act to confirm this marriage, though contracted wkhin the prohibited degrees disposed of ail legal objection to its validity; *52The plaintiffs are lawfully man and wife, and entitled to recover in this action.

*Frame*for plaintiff

*Bates*for defendants.

Verdict for plaintiff.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                         487,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               70,832,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                14,132,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,180,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            66,468,000
<PP&E>                                     152,588,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              63,196,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             181,096,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       35,386,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     1,542,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,616,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               181,096,000
<SALES>                                     98,915,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            98,915,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               85,737,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             4,078,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,973,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,127,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   722,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,405,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,405,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
256 La. 855

#### UNIVERSAL ENGINEERS & BUILDERS, INC. v. LAFAYETTE STEEL ERECTOR CORPORATION et al.

No. 50743.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 30, 1970.

In re: Aetna Insurance Company, Intervenor, applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Lafayette. 235 So.2d 612.

Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error in the judgment.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 29, 2016

No. 04-16-00319-CV

Joseph Aaron HENRY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15802A

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Pro se Appellant’s brief was due to be filed in this appeal on or before August 5, 2016. 

Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time was filed. Appellant filed a letter requesting 

judicial notice; however, this letter did not constitute an appellate brief. Therefore, this Court 

ordered appellant to file his brief on or before August 22, 2016. Appellant has not filed a 

response. 

Because no brief has been filed, it is ORDERED appellant show cause in writing within 

ten days from the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a).

Response should include a reasonable explanation for failure to timely file the brief and 

should demonstrate affirmative steps taken to remedy the deficiency. If appellant intends for the

response to act as a motion for extension of time, it must comply with Rule 10.5 of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Fourth Court of Appeals’ local rules. If appellant no 

longer wishes to pursue this appeal, the response should include a motion to dismiss. 

If this Court does not receive an adequate response within ten days, the appeal will be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). 

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of August, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# Official Journal L 124/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 124 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5913 May 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 124

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5913 May 2016

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | Statement of the European Parliament and of the Commission on the occasion of the adoption of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016 | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

Statement of the European Parliament and of the Commission on the occasion of the adoption of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016

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.

---

II Non-legislative acts

INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENTS

| 13.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 124/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 124/1

---

STATEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COMMISSION ON THE OCCASION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT ON BETTER LAW-MAKING OF 13 APRIL 2016

The European Parliament and the Commission consider that the Agreement (1) reflects the balance between, and respective competences of, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission as set out in the Treaties.

1

It is without prejudice to the Framework Agreement of 20 October 2010 on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (2).

2

---

(1)  
  OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p. 47.

2

---
JP Sanchez Construction, s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 24, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00537

- CV

Joshua KALINCHUK

, Appellant

v.

JP SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTION, CO

., Appellee

From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 30733

Honorable Rober t Cadena, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due to be filed with this court on November 12 , 2015. This court
granted Appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file his brief until December 3 , 2015.

On November 23 , 2015, Appellant filed an unopposed second motion for extension of time to

file his brief until January 15, 2016 , for a total extension of sixty

- four days.

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must be filed with this court not

later than Ja nuary 15, 2016

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d).

NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL

BE GRANTED. If Appellant fails to file his brief as ordered, the court may dismiss this appeal
for want of prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a)(1), 42 .3(b).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my ha nd and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of November, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### George Allister STEWART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-572.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 21, 1970.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Palm Beach County; Russell H. McIntosh, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 41 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 41

 Requiring that travel awards that accrue by reason of official travel 
 of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives be 
               used only with respect to official travel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 1993

   Mr. Weldon (for himself, Mr. Leach, and Mr. Shays) submitted the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Requiring that travel awards that accrue by reason of official travel 
 of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives be 
               used only with respect to official travel.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON USE OF TRAVEL AWARDS.

    Notwithstanding any provision of law or any rule, regulation, or 
other authority, any travel award that accrues by reason of official 
travel of a Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
Representatives may be used only with respect to official travel.

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS.

    The Committee on House Administration of the House of 
Representatives shall have authority to prescribe regulations to carry 
out this resolution.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this resolution--
            (1) the term ``travel award'' means any frequent flier 
        mileage, free travel, discounted travel, or other travel 
        benefit, whether awarded by coupon, membership, or otherwise; 
        and
            (2) the term ``official travel'' means, with respect to the 
        House of Representatives, travel performed for the conduct of 
        official business of the House of Representatives.

                                 <all>
```