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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1998 and is
     qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1,018,534
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,664,031
<ALLOWANCES>                                   276,900
<INVENTORY>                                    124,188
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,991,907
<PP&E>                                         1,140,482
<DEPRECIATION>                                 424,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 16,682,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,276,352
<BONDS>                                        96,266
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       200,549
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,035,070
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,682,144
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,927,229
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,936,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               47,665
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (213,668)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   117,186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (330,854)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (330,854)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)
        


</TABLE>
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 71 

Opposing the International Olympic Committee’s decision to eliminate 

wrestling from the Summer Olympic Games beginning in 2020. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 14, 2013 

Mr. LOEBSACK (for himself, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. WALZ, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, 

Mr. KING of Iowa, and Mr. LATHAM) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Opposing the International Olympic Committee’s decision to 

eliminate wrestling from the Summer Olympic Games 

beginning in 2020. 

Whereas wrestling is recognized as one of the world’s oldest 

competitive sports dating back to 3000 BC; 

Whereas wrestling was one of the original sports of the ancient Greek Olympic Games and of the first modern 

Olympic Games; 

Whereas wrestling is one of the world’s most diverse sports, 

with participants from almost 200 countries around the 

world; 

Whereas over 280,000 high school students in the United 

States participated in wrestling in 2012; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 71 IH 

Whereas there are over 300 intercollegiate wrestling programs in the United States; 

Whereas wrestling represents the determination and hard 

work it takes to succeed in life and sport; 

Whereas the United States has a long, proud, and storied 

Olympic wrestling history; and 

Whereas wrestling epitomizes the spirit of the Olympic 

Games: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) opposes the decision of the International 

3 Olympic Committee to eliminate wrestling from the 

4 Summer Olympic Games beginning in 2020; 

5 (2) thanks the United States Olympic Com6 mittee for their continued support of wrestling and 

7 encourages them to work actively to reverse this de8 cision; and 

9 (3) urges the International Olympic Committee 

10 to reinstate wrestling as a core sport of the Summer 

11 Olympic Games. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Second Review)]

## Determination

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on certain activated carbon from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted this review on February 1, 2018 (83 FR 4681) and determined on May 7, 2018 that it would conduct an expedited review (83 FR 24345, May 25, 2018).

                    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on June 29, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4797 (June 2018), entitled                     *Certain Activated Carbon from                               ( print page 31569)                            China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1103 (Second Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: June 29, 2018.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2018-14472 Filed 7-5-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
#### Kelly vs. Union County.

On appeal from the county court, the circuit court has no jurisdiction to try the merits of the case anew, unless there be error found in the proceedings and judgment of the county court.

Unless the bill of exceptions shows that a record, or paper, was read or used in evidence, such record or paper ought not to be copied in it; and for the omission to do so, in such case, a certiorari will not be ordered to perfect the record.

*Appeal from Union Circuit Cou/rt.*

Hon. Len B. Green, Circuit Judge.

Lee, for appellant.

Carleton, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Fairchild

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Kelly, common school commissioner of Union county, filed an account in the county court, containing a statement of funds arising from fines, forfeitures, licenses, escheats, estrays, etc., which had been paid into the county treasury, and which he claimed to belong to the school fund of the county; and to be paid to him as commissioner. A trial was had in the county court, the claim was disallowed, and Kelly appealed to the circuit court.

On the trial of the case in the county court, the evidence of Kelly consisted of the records of the county court, but the record entries used as evidence were not incorporated in the bill of exceptions, nor was any statement given therein of what they proved.

*332It seems, from the bill of exceptions filed in the circuit court, that Kelly suggested a diminution of the record, and asked that the clerk of the county court be required to embody in the bill of exceptions the records referred to in the account of Kelly, but the circuit court refused, and upon examination of the case, as brought from the county court, affirmed its judgment. The circuit court could not have done otherwise on the bill of exceptions filed in the county court, for it contained no evidence to disprove the correctness of the judgment of the county court. The appeal did not give the circuit court jurisdiction to try the merits of the ease anew. That could not be done until error had been found in the proceedings and judgment of the county court. On coming to such conclusion the circuit court would have reversed the judgment of the county court, set the case for trial, and it would then have been open for the reception of any evidence to sustain the claim of Kelly. *Carnall vs. Crawford County,*6, *Eng.*622; *Claris Cownty vs. Spence,*21 *Ark.*446. Considering the account of Kelly as incorporated into the bill of exceptipns, which the clerk had not done in the. transcript before us, we see references by letter and page which we take to apply to record books; still those records could not be copied into the bill of exceptions unless the bill had shown that the records referred to were read, or were used in evidence. There was no ground on which to support the motion for a perfection of the record. The defect could be amended only by making a new bill of exceptions, and the circuit court could do no more than compel a true copy of that taken in the county court, to be certified to the circuit court. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
#### Nick FULTZ v. Sally HARRIS et al.

No. 49583.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 31, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1977.

J. Harold Graham, Jr., Robert W. Lawrence, Crystal Springs, for appellant.

Townsend, McWilliams & Holladay, Tommy M. McWilliams, Drew, for appellees.

Before SMITH, P. J., BROOM and LEE, JJ., and MICHAEL D. SULLIVAN, C.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Hinds County; J. C. Stennett, Chancellor.

AFFIRMED.
#### BEE LINE HEAVY HAULERS, INC., a Florida corporation, Petitioner, v. William H. BEVIS, Chairman et al., Respondents.

No. 43532.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 5, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1974.

Richard B. Austin, Miami, for petitioner.

*316Prentice P. Pruitt, Chief Staff Counsel, and M. Robert Christ, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Our careful consideration and analysis of the petition, the record, briefs and arguments of counsel sustain the view that the findings of the Commission are supported by competent substantial evidence and that, in entering its order, Respondent Commission met the essential requirements of law.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is

Denied.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD McCAIN and DEKLE, JT., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS AND
ACCUMULATED DEFICIT ON PAGES 2-5 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY
PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          29,911
<SECURITIES>                                        44
<RECEIVABLES>                                       74
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,040
<PP&E>                                         256,625
<DEPRECIATION>                                      84
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 288,120
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,268
<BONDS>                                         25,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       194,475
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   288,120
<SALES>                                            489
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   979
<CGS>                                              231
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,939)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        24
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,831)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,831)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        

</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-08-00489-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

GREGORY SMIKLE, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yanez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Gregory Smikle, attempts to appeal a conviction for assault. The trial

court has certified that this “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of

appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).

On August 14, 2008, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether appellant
2

has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to

whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the

existence of any amended certification.

On September 6, 2008, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel’s

response does not establish: (1) that the certification currently on file with this Court is

incorrect, or (2) that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed

if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal.

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this appeal is

DISMISSED. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed

this the 23rd day of October, 2008.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. §1350)



I, Wayne B. Fuquay, of Analytical Surveys, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended September 30, 2003 (the
Report) which this statement accompanies 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 Analytical Surveys, Inc.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Dated: May 17, 2004                  
|                                     
|/s/ Wayne B. Fuquay                  
|Wayne B. Fuquay                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUMMIT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. DATED DECEMBER
31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       9,386,069
<SECURITIES>                                35,243,624
<RECEIVABLES>                                  822,649
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,471,303
<PP&E>                                       2,655,305
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,847,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,764,082
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       103,438
<OTHER-SE>                                  45,979,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,847,282
<SALES>                                      3,671,133
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,671,133
<CGS>                                        2,099,945
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,390,304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,068,812
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,068,812
<DISCONTINUED>                            (13,904,944)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,836,132)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.28)
        

</TABLE>
Calendar No. 132

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1174

A BILL

For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

JULY 15 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Reported without amendment
VIII

Calendar No. 132

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1174

For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 22), 1993

Mr. COHEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

JULY 15 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

Reported by Mr. BIDEN, without amendment

A BILL

For the relief of Olga D. Zhondetskaya.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. GRANT OF NATURALIZATION TO OLGA D.

4 ZHONDETSKAYA.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, Olga D. Zhondetskaya shall be naturalized

7 as a citizen of the United States upon the filing of the

8 appropriate application and upon being administered the

9 oath of renunciation and allegiance in an appropriate cere-
2

•S 1174 RS

1 mony pursuant to section 337 of the Immigration and Na2 tionality Act.

3 (b) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

4 FEES.—Subsection (a) shall apply only if the application

5 for naturalization is filed with appropriate fees within 1

6 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
#### J. W. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE and David & Bailey Service Co., Inc., Respondents.

No. Q-10.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 14, 1972.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1972.

*234James E. Moore, and William Raymond Touchstone, Jr., of Moore & Crump, Valparaiso, for petitioner.

Kenneth H. Hart, Jr. and Alex D. Little-field, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari to review decision of the Industrial Relations Commission of the Department of Commerce.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner had been employed as a subcontractor painter or foreman on a painting job. He and the men under him could not work when it was raining or weather precluded painting. There was a wet season and not much work being done. On March 1, 1971, Monday, the petitioner had reported for work, but was unable to work because of the weather. The next day, also a wet day, petitioner, after ascertaining from the weather bureau that rain was predicted for the balance of the week, agreed to help a friend move some articles to Georgia, without pay. He returned home on Friday night and learned from his employer that the men had worked on Friday, and that petitioner had been replaced. There is some dispute about some keys to a trailer where the paint and equipment was stored, and about a truck used on the job.

Petitioner made application for benefits under unemployment compensation, as provided by law, and followed the procedure required prior to petition to this Court.

We have reviewed the record and briefs and citations in support of each party’s contention, and we are of the opinion and so hold, that the facts and circumstances surrounding this case do not support the respondent’s decision that the claimant, petitioner, voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to his employer. We have reviewed the cases and are of the opinion that each case must stand on its facts. We are not unmindful of the fact that the Unemployment Compensation Law is remedial, humanitarian legislation and should be liberally and broadly construed.1 The petitioner may have used bad judgment in not notifying his employer of his intended trip or in relying on the weather forecast, but nothing in this record substantially supports the fact that petitioner intended to abandon his job or that he deliberately absented himself for only one day when the weather permitted painting.

For the reasons stated, the decision of the respondent is quashed and this cause is remanded for entry of an order allowing the prescribed benefits.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J„ and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

1

. Williams v. Florida Industrial Commision, 135 So.2d 435 (Fla.App.3rd, 1961).
Explanation of preamble reference in EPA’s 2015 Significant New Use R ule for Hexabromochlorododecane, (HBCD) Final Rule

Reference name: " EPA. 2012b. Count of SNUN Submissions as tracked in EPA’s Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS). February, 2012. ”

Explanation: EPA’s Economics and Policy Analysis Branch researched Significant New Use

Notifications in the EPA’s CBI Tracking System database in February, 2012.
No. 00-971.

#### Morris *v.*Texas.

Ct. App. Tex., 11th Dist. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1
 
   (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Arthur A. RodneyArthur A. RodneyChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
May 13, 2010
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.