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

       <S><C>

<ARTICLE>5

<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Consolidated Balance Sheets of
King World Productions, Inc. and its Subsidiaries and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                         317,782
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,101
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               704,060
<PP&E>                                          21,455
<DEPRECIATION>                                (11,706)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 902,067
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          117,985
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           510
<OTHER-SE>                                     783,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   902,067
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               671,277
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  395,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                83,507
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                221,926
<INCOME-TAX>                                    78,544
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            143,382
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   143,382
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.82

        


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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

October 26, 2010 

p1018 

Order 

 

October 26, 2010 

141342 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141342 

 COA: 288577 

Oakland CC: 2008-008818-AR 

WILLIAM DAWSON OLSEN, 50th DC: 0753419SL 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 8, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### STATE of Florida, Plaintiff, v. Aaron Dennis CARROLL, Defendant.

No. 43615.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 19, 1973.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Raymond L. Marky, and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Attys. Gen., for plaintiff.

James M. Russ and Michael F. Cycman-ick, of Law Offices of James M. Russ, and Charles J. Cullom, Orlando, for defendant.

ADKINS, Justice.

We have for consideration questions from the Ninth Judicial Circuit, relating to Fla.Stat. §§ 775.08, 782.04, 921.141 (Capital Punishment), F.S.A., certified under the provisions of Fla.App.Rules, Rule 4.6, 32 F.S.A.

The above appellate rule provides certain limitations within which the question must be presented and these limitations are strictly observed. Clar v. Dade County, 116 So.2d 34 (Fla.App.3d, 1959); Hillsborough County v. Bennett, 173 So.2d 688 (Fla.1965). One of the limitations imposed is that the certified question must be without controlling precedent in Florida. Bigby v. Lykes Bros., 153 Fla. 313, 14 So.2d 565 (1943); Stanley v. Home Owners Mortgage Co., 42 So.2d 770 (Fla.1949); Jaworski v. City of Opa-Locka, 149 So.2d 566 (Fla.App.3d, 1963).

This Court in State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973), held that Fla.Stat. §§ 775.082, 782.04, 921.141, F.S.A., was constitutional. The request is therefore denied.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
2004 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-20-2004

Storey v. Burns Intl Security

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 03-2246

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2004 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Storey v. Burns Intl Security" (2004). 2004 Decisions. Paper 13.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2004/13
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No: 03-2246

CURTIS BLAINE STOREY

 Appellant

 v.

BURNS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SERVICES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Civil Action No. 02-cv-00621)

District Judge: Hon. David S. Cercone

Argued: February 9, 2004

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, Roth and McKee, Circuit Judges

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Precedential Opinion filed in this case filed

on December 9, 2004, be amended as follows:

In footnote 2, delete the sentence that reads: “The district court also dismissed that

claim, but it is an issue on appeal.” And, replace it with: “The district court also

dismissed that claim, but it is not an issue on appeal.”
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

 

/s/ Theodore A. McKee

 Circuit Judge

DATED: December 20, 2004
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion *

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30171

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EARL KEN BUCHANAN, also known as Earl Scroggins,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:01-CR-50027-1

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Earl Ken Buchanan

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Buchanan has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 18, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. [5th Circuit Case No.]

2

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
#### Leon A. EPSTEIN and Vivian G. Epstein, his wife, Appellants, v. W. Wirt CULBERTSON, as Tax Assessor for Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, et al., Appellees.

No. 72-844.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 6, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 1, 2016

No. 04-16-00325-CR

Carlos MARQUEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-07-00117CRF

Honorable Russell H. Wilson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Carlos Marquez entered into a plea bargain with the State, pursuant to which Marquez 

pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. As part of his plea bargain, Marquez 

waived his right to file a notice of appeal with the court of appeals. The trial court imposed 

sentence in accordance with the agreement and signed a certificate stating this “is a plea-bargain 

case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Marquez timely 

filed a notice of appeal. The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s rule 25.2(a)(2) 

certification and a written plea bargain agreement, has been filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). 

This court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of 

appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id.

The clerk’s record establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the 

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.2(a)(2). The record also appears to support the trial court’s certification that Marquez does not 

have a right to appeal. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that 

court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is 

accurate). 

Marquez is hereby given notice that this appeal will be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d)

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless an amended certification showing that 

Marquez has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by June 22, 2016. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order),

disp. on merits, No. 04-03-00176-CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not 

designated for publication).
We order all appellate deadlines suspended until further order of the court. We further 

order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and the court 

reporter. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 1st day of June, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
251 La. 734

#### LIBERTY LOAN CORPORATION OF LAFAYETTE, INC. v. W. W. JOBE.

No. 49018.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 2, 1968.

In re: W. W. Jobe applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia'. 203 So.2d 723.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
-  Coronavirus 
-  Grants 
-  Health Insurance Reform 
-  HHS Administrative 
-  HIPAA 
-  Medicare and Medicaid 
-  Programs for Families and Children 
-  Public Health and Safety 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Category: Grants

**Topics: **Grants

### Grants

##         What are some legal obligations that are part of receiving a Federal grant?      

To make sure that grant funds are used properly, organizations that receive Federal funds must file regular financial status reports. These forms should not take long to complete, but they are important. The basic financial report form is the Standard Form 269.

Read the full answer

##         What kinds of grants are available from the Federal government?      

Discretionary grants are awarded competitively, typically for projects such as  Hospital Preparedness Program, the Global AIDS program,  and Cardiovascular Diseases Research. Formula/block grants are distributed based on authorizing legislation and are typically awarded to states or local agencies for specific services such as Medicaid, Medicare Services, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Read the full answer

##         What are the rules on funding religious activity with Federal money?      

The U. S. Supreme Court decided that faith-based organizations may not use direct government funds to support religious activity.

Read the full answer

##         What is the difference between Indirect Funding and Direct Funding?      

Indirect funding is funding that an organization receives as the result of the genuine and independent private choice of a beneficiary through a voucher, certificate, coupon, or other similar mechanism. Direct funding is funding that is provided to an organization directly by a governmental entity or intermediate organization that has the same duties as a government entity.

Read the full answer

##         Does HHS call families and promise to give them a free grant if I send them some money or give them my bank account number?      

No. The only official access point for all federal grants is to apply online at Grants.gov. Some scam artists advertise “free grants” in the classifieds, inviting readers to call a toll-free number for more information. Others are bolder: they call you out of the blue. They lie about where they’re calling from, claiming that you will receive a grant that you don’t have to pay back.

Read the full answer

## Search HHS FAQs by questions or keywords:
#### Robert LEWIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40227.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 13, 1970.

Certiorari denied.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



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, 2004 (the 
Quarterly Report), I, Pasquale A. Ambrogio, Chief 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 Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                         |  | 
|------------------------ |  | 
|Dated: November 12, 2004
|                        
|/s/ Pasquale A. Ambrogio
|Chief Financial Officer
251 La. 73

#### Walter L. GRAVES et al. v. TRADERS AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Cass Collins and the Travelers Insurance Co.

No. 48855.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1967.

In re: The Travelers Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 200 So.2d 67.

Writ granted, but limited to a consideration of Assignment of Error No. 1 in all other respects the application is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 107 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 107

 To prohibit the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the United 
  States until China, India, and Russia implement similar reductions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 23 (legislative day, January 3), 2013

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the United 
  States until China, India, and Russia implement similar reductions.

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

SECTION 1. CARBON DIOXIDE REDUCTIONS IN CHINA, INDIA, AND RUSSIA.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency or the head of any other Federal 
agency shall not regulate carbon dioxide emissions until the date on 
which the Secretary of Commerce certifies in writing that each of the 
People's Republic of China, the Republic of India, and Russia have 
initiated measures that require carbon dioxide emission reductions that 
are substantially similar to the carbon dioxide emission reductions 
proposed for the United States.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                                MICROGRAFX, INC.

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



Information is set forth below concerning all subsidiaries of the Company as of
June 30, 2001:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name of Subsidiary                               Incorporation                                  Company

<S>                                              <C>                                                  <C>
InterCAP Graphics Systems                        Delaware                                             100%
Micrografx France, SARL                          France                                               100%
Micrografx Deutschland GmBH                      Germany                                              100%
Micrografx K.K.                                  Japan                                                100%
Micrografx B.V.                                  The Netherlands                                      100%
Micrografx Technology N.V.                       Netherlands Antilles                                 100%
Micrografx, Ltd                                  United Kingdom                                       100%
Micrografx Australia Pty. Limited                Australia                                            100%
Micrografx Italia S.r.l.                         Italy                                                100%
Micrografx Interactive, Inc                      Delaware                                             100%
Image2Web, Inc                                   Delaware                                             100%
InterCap Graphics Systems AG                     Switzerland                                      InterCap
(Indirect Subsidiary)                                                                                  99%
</TABLE>


                                      58
EXHIBIT 31.1

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(A) CERTIFICATION

I, Steven B. Solomon, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of CT Holdings Enterprises,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (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 report is being
     prepared;

     (b) 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; and

     (c) 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 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
     to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (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; and

     (b) 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/ STEVEN B. SOLOMON
---------------------
Steven B. Solomon
President and Chief Executive Officer

March 31, 2007
#### John P. LASSARETTO, Appellant, v. Irvin R. WUNDER and Cy’s Laundry & Cleaners, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 71-731.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 29, 1972.

Bernard H. Butts, Jr., Hialeah, for appellant.

Talburt, Kubicki and Vogler, Jeanne Heyward, Robert Dickman, Miami, for ap-pellees.

Before SWANN, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Cloud v. Fallis, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669; Ridarsick v. Amirkanian, Fla.App.1963, 147 So.2d 580.
# C_2022064EN.01000502.xml

| 7.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/5

---

Appeal brought on 25 March 2021 by RY against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 January 2021 in Case T-824/19, RY v Commission

(Case C-193/21 P)

(2022/C 64/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: RY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 9 December 2021, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible.

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

129198 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 129198 

 COA: 254494 

Wayne CC: 03-011212-01 

TOMMY BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 23, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1221 

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. 

December 28, 2005 

Clerk