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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,412,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,117,308
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    436,583
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,994,838
<PP&E>                                       5,056,169
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,745,962
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,080,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,053,053
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    140,863
<COMMON>                                     1,501,315
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,694,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,080,768
<SALES>                                     11,486,058
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,486,058
<CGS>                                        8,677,047
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,399,389
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (510,106)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             471,545
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (6,297,353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (6,297,353)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (6,297,353)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.52)



</TABLE>
#### Mary Naomi Jackson BURKE, Widow of Joseph A. Jackson, Deceased, Petitioner, v. MONTGOMERY BROTHERS TRUCKING COMPANY, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 37216.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 26, 1968.

R. K. Roberson, of Clayton & Roberson, De Land, for petitioner.

William J. Smith, of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, Orlando, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date February 23, 1968.

After oral argument and upon consideration of the petition, the briefs and the record, we conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law. The petition is therefore denied.

The petition for attorney’s fees filed by Petitioner is also denied.

It is so ordered.

CALDWELL, C. J., and THOMAS, THORNAL, ERVIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JOSHUA D. KNAUP, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50107 

D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00560-CAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Joshua D. Knaup appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges 

the 33-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea convictions for two 

counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Knaup contends that the district court abused its discretion by imposing 

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 16 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-50107 

sentence based on internally inconsistent factual findings. We disagree. The 

district court’s remarks consistently reflect its finding that Knaup defrauded 

investors. The court’s speculation that Knaup may have come to believe his 

misstatements was not inconsistent with that finding. Further, the 33-month 

sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing 

factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to provide just 

punishment for the offense. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
[KPMG Logo]
2500 Ruan Center
666 Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA  50309


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Board of Directors
Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration  Statements (No.'s.
333-10249,  333-10251,  333-21253,  and 333-81855) on Form S-8 of Smithway Motor
Xpress Corp.  of our report  dated  February 2, 2001,  relating to  consolidated
balance sheets of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.  and  subsidiaries  as of December
31,  2000  and  1999,  and the  related  consolidated  statements  of  earnings,
stockholders'  equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year
period ended  December 31, 2000,  which report  appears in the December 31, 2000
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp.

                                  /s/ KPMG LLP


Des Moines, Iowa
March 15, 2001
Order entered July 1, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00562-CV

SILVER STAR TITLE, L.L.C. D/B/A SENDERA TITLE, Appellant

V.

MARQUIS WESTLAKE DEVELOPMENT, INC., ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 95th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-11010

ORDER

Before the Court is appellees’ June 7, 2019 motion to dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. We DENY appellees’ motion. See Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith Southern Equip. 

Inc., 10 S.W.3d 308, 314 (Tex. 2000) (timely filed post-judgment motion that seeks a substantive 

change in an existing judgment qualifies as a motion to modify under Rule 329b(g) and extends 

appellate timetable).

Also before the Court is appellant’s June 21, 2019 motion for an extension of time to file 

its brief on the merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to August 5, 2019.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
II

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1211

To extend the suspension of duties on certain glass fibers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 1 (legislative day, JUNE 30), 1993

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To extend the suspension of duties on certain glass fibers.

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

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

4 Headings 9902.70.19 and 9902.70.20 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States are each

6 amended by striking ‘‘12/31/92’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/

7 94’’.

8 SEC. 2. PRODUCT DESCRIPTION.

9 Headings 9902.70.19 and 9902.70.20 of the Har10 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States are each

11 amended by striking ‘‘9 microns in diameter or 10 microns
2

•S 1211 IS

1 in diameter’’ and inserting ‘‘7 microns in diameter to 11.5

2 microns in diameter’’.

3 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by sec5 tions 1 and 2 apply to articles entered, or withdrawn from

6 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after

7 the date of the enactment of this Act.

8 (b) RETROACTIVE PROVISION.—Notwithstanding sec9 tion 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision

10 of law, upon a request filed with the appropriate customs

11 officer on or before the 90th day after the date of the

12 enactment of this Act, any entry, or withdrawal from

13 warehouse for consumption, of an article described in

14 heading 9902.70.19 or 9902.70.20 of the Harmonized

15 Tariff Schedule of the United States that was made—

16 (1) after December 31, 1992; and

17 (2) before the 15th day after the date of the

18 enactment of this Act;

19 and with respect to which there would have been no duty

20 or a lower duty if the amendment made by section 1 or

21 section 2 applied to such entry or withdrawal, shall be liq22 uidated or reliquidated as though such entry or with23 drawal occurred on such 15th day.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Nov-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    Aug-31-1995
<CASH>                             13,802
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                     422,123
<ALLOWANCES>                      154,873
<INVENTORY>                        38,460
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  362,857
<PP&E>                            368,656
<DEPRECIATION>                    307,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,243,889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             401,958
<BONDS>                                 0
<COMMON>                        2,989,482
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                     2,216,668
<OTHER-SE>                     (1,861,678)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,243,889
<SALES>                           728,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,891,220
<CGS>                             628,967
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,228,489
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                1,587,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   37,784
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  6,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (2,963)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (2,963)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       (2,963)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
#### GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and Arthur Atwater KENT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PREFERRED ELECTRIC & WIRE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 288.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 15, 1937.

Drury W. Cooper and Thomas J. Byrne, both of New York City, and Plarry W. Lindsey, Jr., of Chicago, 111., for appellants.

Theodore S. Kenyon, John L. Lotsch, and W. Houston Kenyon, Jr., all of New York City, for appellee.

Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed.
#### Maria del Pilar Bertha Lopez de Quintana de ORDONO, a/k/a Bertha Ordono, M. L. de Quintana, Jr., and Maria Teresa L. de Quintana, Petitioners, v. Carmen Camps de QUINTANA, individually, Respondent.

No. 36247.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 10, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 29, 1967.

Wall, Roth & Sheradsky and Redfearn & Simon, Miami, for petitioners.

George H. Salley and Paul D. Barns, Jr., Miami, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is here on petition for writ of certiorari supported by certificate of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, that its decision is one which involves a question of great public interest. See Section 4(2), Article V, Constitution of Florida, F.S.A.

The factual circumstances, background and questions involved are set forth in the *179decision of the District Court reported at 195 So.2d 577 (Fla.App.3rd 1967).

The writ issued and oral argument by the parties has been heard. We hold that the District Court of Appeal correctly decided the issue before it, and we adopt such as the ruling of this court.

The writ of certiorari is accordingly

Discharged.

O’CONNELL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
H. Res. 753 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

November 14, 2014. 

Resolved, That a revised edition of the Rules and Manual 

of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress be printed as a House document, and that 

three thousand additional copies shall be printed and bound 

for the use of the House of Representatives, of which nine 

hundred sixty copies shall be bound in leather with thumb 

index and delivered as may be directed by the Parliamentarian of the House. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HARBINGER CORPORATION FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL 
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,900
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,950
<PP&E>                                          18,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,675
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,432
<BONDS>                                          1,223
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,675
<SALES>                                         12,433
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,688
<CGS>                                            1,640
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,731
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                36,633
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (42)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,687)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,419
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,419
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,525)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.71)
        

</TABLE>
From: Adams, Darryl [mailto:Adams.Darryl@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 10:27 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney; Culligan, Kevin 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj; Curry, Bridgid; Eck, Janet 

Subject: RE: Final version of EGU GHG EG proposal 

Okay, thank you. I'll do that first thing Monday morning 7am-ish. Have a good weekend. 

Darryl Adams 

Regulatory Management Division 

Office of Policy, U.S. EPA 

202 564-6569 

Mail Code 1806A, Room 6440U WJC North 

From: Higgins, Cortney <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 10:21 PM 

To: Adams, Darryl; Culligan, Kevin 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj; Curry, Bridgid 

Subject: RE: Final version of EGU GHG EG proposal 

Hi Darryl, 

I will send a note with the drafts attached similar to what I did for the mods/reconstructed, along 

with instructions to upload. 

Regards, 

Cortney 

From: Adams, Darryl [mailto:Adams.Darryl@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 10:18 PM 

To: Culligan, Kevin; Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj; Curry, Bridgid 

Subject: RE: Final version of EGU GHG EG proposal 

Thanks Kevin. Confirming that this is EPA's official version for upload - correct? 

Darryl Adams 
Regulatory Management Division 

Office of Policy, U.S. EPA 

202 564-6569 

Mail Code 1806A, Room 6440U WJC North 

From: Culligan, Kevin 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 10:12 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj; Adams, Darryl; Curry, Bridgid 

Subject: FW: Final version of EGU GHG EG proposal
**Exhibit23.1**

 

Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-3 Nos. 33-31932, 33-40222, 33-41854, 33-43856, 33-58766,333-110460, 333-115724, 333-15933, 333-24187 and 333-28415) and in the relatedProspectuses, and in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 33-31439,33-33887, 33-34112, 33-34834, 33-44519, 33-58929, 333-04021, 333-17889, 333-45935,333-45939, 333-90645, 333-90647 and 333-75418) pertaining to the 1987 StockOption Plan of Magnetek, Inc., the Magnetek, Inc. FlexCarePlus Retirement Savings Plan, the 1989 Incentive Stock Compensation Plan ofMagnetek, Inc., the Magnetek Unionized Employee Savings Plan, the Amendedand Restated 1989 Incentive Stock Compensation Plan of Magnetek, Inc., theSecond Amended and Restated 1989 Incentive Stock Compensation Plan of Magnetek, Inc.,the Magnetek, Inc. Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, the Magnetek, Inc.Deferred Investment Plan, the Magnetek, Inc. 1997 Non-Employee DirectorStock Option Plan, the Magnetek, Inc. Amended and Restated DirectorCompensation and Deferral Investment Plan, the 1999 Stock Incentive Plan ofMagnetek, Inc., the 2000 Employee Stock Plan of Magnetek, Inc. andthe 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Magnetek, Inc. of our reportsdated September 30, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and financial statement schedule of Magnetek, Inc., Magnetek, Inc.management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingof Magnetek, Inc., included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyear ended July 3, 2005.

 

 
|                       | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP |   |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                       |
| Woodland Hills, California |
| September 30, 2005    |

 

----
-  Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) 
-  About DAB      -  Organizational Overview 
  -  Who are the Judges? 
  -  DAB Divisions 
  -  Contact DAB 
-  Filing an Appeal Online      -  DAB E-File 
  -  Medicare Operations Division (MOD) E-File 
-  Different Appeals at DAB      -  Appeals to DAB Administrative Law Judges (ALJs)         -  Forms 
    -  Procedures 
  -  Appeals to Board        -  Practice Manual 
    -  Guidelines 
    -  Regulations 
    -  National Coverage Determination Complaints 
  -  Appeals to the Medicare Appeals Council (Council)        -  Forms 
    -  Fully Integrated Duals Advantage (FIDA) Demonstration Project 
-  Alternative Dispute Resolution Services      -  Sharing Neutrals 
  -  ADR Training 
  -  Other ADR Services 
-  DAB Decisions      -  Board Decisions 
  -  DAB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Decisions 
  -  Medicare Appeals Council (Council) Decisions 
-  Stakeholder Feedback 
-  Careers      -  Open Career Opportunities 
  -  Internships & Externships 

                            -  English 
                            -  Español (Spanish) 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# 1. Alcance

Las partes deben seguir los Procedimientos de la División de Recursos Civiles (CRDP) para la presentación de casos ante la División de Recursos Civiles (CRD). Excepto en la medida en la que se lo sustituya por un auto del Juez de lo contencioso administrativo (ALJ) en un caso en particular, los Procedimientos de la División de Recursos Civiles tienen la misma fuerza y efecto legal que si hubieran sido ordenados por el Juez de lo contencioso administrativo.

Los Procedimientos de la División de Recursos Civiles no sustituyen las normas regulatorias promulgadas por la Secretaría de Salud y Servicios Sociales (Secretaría) y se deberán interpretar consistentemente con las reglamentaciones en un caso en particular.

Content last reviewed March 28, 2016
# C_2021412EN.01000701.xml

| 11.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 28 July 2021 — Global Starnet Ltd v Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-463/21)

(2021/C 412/04)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Global Starnet Ltd

Respondents: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the introduction of a provision, such as that contained in Article 1(649) of Law 190/14, which reduces commission and fees only in respect of a specific and limited category of operator, namely operators of games played on gaming machines, and not all operators in the gaming sector, compatible with the exercise of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 49 TFEU and with the exercise of the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the introduction of a provision, such as that contained in Article 1(649) of Law 190/14, which reduces commission and fees only in respect of a specific and limited category of operator, namely operators of games played on gaming machines, and not all operators in the gaming sector, compatible with the exercise of the freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 49 TFEU and with the exercise of the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU?

| 2. | Is the introduction of the abovementioned provision contained in Article 1(649) of Law 190/14, which for economic reasons alone reduced the fees agreed to in a concession agreement concluded between a company and an Italian State authority during the term of that agreement, compatible with the EU-law principle of the protection of legitimate expectations? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the introduction of the abovementioned provision contained in Article 1(649) of Law 190/14, which for economic reasons alone reduced the fees agreed to in a concession agreement concluded between a company and an Italian State authority during the term of that agreement, compatible with the EU-law principle of the protection of legitimate expectations?

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Sam BATISTE.

No. 53930.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 12, 1973.

In re: Sam Batiste applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

CALOGERO, J., dissents from refusal to grant this writ..