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


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                              622
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            3,926
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                      0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                      0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      47,649
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           10,396
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             10,378
<LOANS>                                          65,785
<ALLOWANCE>                                         263
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  133,326
<DEPOSITS>                                       79,007
<SHORT-TERM>                                     39,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1,344
<LONG-TERM>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             11
<OTHER-SE>                                       13,464
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  133,326
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   1,307
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                   853
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     65
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  2,225
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                  980
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,438
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                               787
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        15
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   13
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                     613
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     288
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          288
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                        186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     7.17
<LOANS-NON>                                         181
<LOANS-PAST>                                          0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                      0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     490
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                    248
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        15
<RECOVERIES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                   263
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                167
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                   0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              96
        


</TABLE>
#### Woodrow INGRAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-234.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 27, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Gino P. NEGRETTI, as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Alfredo Vicente, Deceased, and Alfredo Vicente, Jr., Appellants, v. Gloria VICENTE, Appellee.

No. 73-1098.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 13, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
NO. 12-15-00138-CR

ON APPEAL FROM THE 123rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO. 2014-CR-19231

JUAN MERINO §

§

IN THE 12TH COURT OF APPEALS

§ OF

vs. §

§

STATE OF TEXAS § TYLER, TEXAS

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE APPELLANT'S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes Juan Merino, Appellant in the above styled and numbered cause, 

and moves this Court to grant an extension of time to file appellant's brief, pursuant 

to Rule 38.6 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and for good cause shows 

the following:

1. This case is on appeal from the 123rd District Court of Shelby County, 

Texas.

2. The case below was styled the STATE OF TEXAS vs. Juan Merino, 

and numbered 2014-CR-19231. Appellant was convicted of Aggravated Sexual 

Assault. 

4. Appellant was assessed a sentence of Sixty (60) years in Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division on April 16, 2015. 

5. Notice of appeal was given on April 23, 2015. 

6. The clerk's record was filed on June 3, 2015 and a supplemental clerk’s 

record was filed on June 29, 2015; the reporter's record was filed on July 14, 2015 

and the reporter’s exhibits were filed on July 15, 2015. 

ACCEPTED

12-15-00138-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

10/14/2015 1:38:09 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 10/14/2015 1:38:09 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
7. The appellate brief was presently due on October 14, 2015.

8. Appellant requests an extension of time of twenty (20) days from the 

current due date.

9. Two extensions to file the brief have been received in this cause.

10. Defendant is currently incarcerated.

11. Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the requested 

extension:

The brief is complete excepting one point of error. Due to a recent stroke, 

Counsel is physically unable to sit at a computer for extended periods of time and 

would like a few extras days as to not neglect the final appeal point.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this 

Court grant this Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant's Brief, and for such other 

and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

Respectfully submitted:

 /s/John D. Reeves

____________________

John D. Reeves

Attorney at Law

1007 Grant

Lufkin, Texas 75901

Phone (936) 632-160

Fax: (936) 632-1640

tessabellus@yahoo.com

SBOT # 16723000

Counsel for Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. 10.1 (5), certify that I, the undersigned conferred 

with opposing counsel who is not opposed to an extension.

/s/John D. Reeves

___________________________

John D. Reeves

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant’s 

Motion to Extend Time to file Appellant’s Brief on this 14th day of October, 2015 

forwarded to State’s Attorney, Kenneth B. Florence, Shelby County, by electronic 

service at shelbyda@sbcglobal.net.

/s/John D. Reeves

__________________________

John D. Reeves

Attorney for Appellant, 

Juan Merino
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions Rulemaking

MEMORANDUM TO RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting with ACWA’s Monitoring, Standards & Assessment Committee

DATE: Wednesday, May 21, 2014

TIME: 2:30 – 4:30 PM

Invitees:

EPA – Sara Hisel-McCoy, Grace Robiou, Shari Barash, Manjali Vlcan, Janita Aguirre

ACWA/States – Susan Kirsch; Melissa Mccoy; Alex Barron, Andrea Matzke, Brock Tabor,

Cheri Niemi, Connie Brower, Connie Carey, Daryll Joyner, David Chestnut, Derek Smithee, Eric

Urban, Julia Anastasio, Ken Weaver, Dan Peckham, Kevin Coyne, Lindsay Patterson, Martha

Clark Mettler, Meghan Bell, Nancy Sonafrank, Roop Guha, Sandy Stephens, Shivi Selvaratnam,

Susanne Meidel, Slyvia Heaton, Michelle Moses, Kim Senno, Susan Braley, Dan Weaver,

Jeremy Smith, Jason Childress

Summary of Meeting: Participants provided a report out and had discussion of the State-EPA

Roundtable effort.
#### CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. Varnell HESS, Appellee.

No. 70-11.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 11, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Arthur Lee SAMPSON, a/k/a Arthur Lee Simpson, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-68.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 31, 1972.

Arthur Lee Sampson, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of this appeal, and the appellant having filed his response thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1
 
              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-8 Nos. 33-36208, 33-47891, 33-58872, 33-81994, 333-00877, 333-05077,
333-21833 and 333-46455) pertaining to the 1988 Stock Option Plan, 1995 Stock
Option Plan, 1995 Outside Directors Stock Plan, 1996 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan, certain stock option agreements issued in connection with the
acquisition of Virtual Machine Works, Inc., and certain individual employee
stock option agreements of IKOS Systems, Inc., of our report dated October 27,
1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
IKOS Systems, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended October 3, 1998.
 
                                          Ernst & Young LLP
 
San Jose, California
December 18, 1998
(72007 . es Melony C.

ind were living om the tat day of June, 1880. "No others will, chilagga BORN SINCE 250.
» gouty Dit. No Ga ‘lune 11800, wil be OMITTED. Matavere of Familia wh have DIED SINCE June 1, 190, will be INCLUDED.
sob ist. Now ZL

\ Z Whe
gatas, Le L—lohabitants in| 72 Azer. +n he fount of
| | enumerated. by me on the JE... day of Sune, | /1880

N 23 ‘May 81, 1880,
page Nol Zid.

Saha Vo | : Tiare. Jiggs 6
50 AG ‘ala pla tec oe Comes
sas Cag a R
Brees
es ie
a7 Cotten Je —|-
Becrden Dacor! op

2 ae Lon ifigee |

Davy

Lee.

1 op Kip Posen.

asegdhlern

y — Wizz

tried, Me rtheeate- Be "
Z fevat i \ Bias: Ker,
Se LG i i E LZ a ae

Fan Y Yer Hypa.
Qeaphle OE. fons ( Graae. ZB *
b Lot V | etre 4 {AA pgs Lag oS Zz
OE Ln A MA

pa : Gate
Bey Zz

Baap
Hees,

B
dauiligg
Dowcso.

bees
eon “Ci oe

Least, Ce
“Yano.

awe. VE dacs |
= facet) Les haweeey foeTM

census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.qov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

ly Vii
seas
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BIRNER
DENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         953,379
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,140,679
<ALLOWANCES>                                   214,820
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,580,895
<PP&E>                                      11,673,821
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,098,102
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,683,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,716,052
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,958,629
<OTHER-SE>                                     127,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,683,789
<SALES>                                     21,724,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,724,265
<CGS>                                        6,111,474
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,111,474
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,993,151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             314,869
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                304,771
<INCOME-TAX>                                   113,718
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            191,053
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   191,053
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
#### UNITED PURVEYORS, INC., Appellant, v. REPUBLIC BUILDERS, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 70-267.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 19, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          Jul-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            Sep-30-1999
<CASH>                                        55472
<SECURITIES>                                  33078
<RECEIVABLES>                                 49202
<ALLOWANCES>                                   2198
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             156374
<PP&E>                                        37165
<DEPRECIATION>                                16675
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               180445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         46115
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         27
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                    63963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 180445
<SALES>                                      136308
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             136308
<CGS>                                          1651
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 46881
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2971
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (11529)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (2551)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (8978)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (8978)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.34)


</TABLE>
#### Patrick S. LUNDQUIST, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-627.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 22, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 133 

To protect all patients by prohibiting the use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny or delay coverage of items or services 

under Federal health care programs and to ensure that comparative 

effectiveness research accounts for advancements in personalized medicine 

and differences in patient treatment response. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013 

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Mr. COBURN, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. 

CRAPO, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To protect all patients by prohibiting the use of data obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny 

or delay coverage of items or services under Federal 

health care programs and to ensure that comparative 

effectiveness research accounts for advancements in personalized medicine and differences in patient treatment 

response. 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 133 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preserving Access to 

3 Targeted, Individualized, and Effective New Treatments 

4 and Services (PATIENTS) Act of 2013’’ or the ‘‘PA5 TIENTS Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN USES OF DATA OB7 TAINED FROM COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVE8 NESS RESEARCH; ACCOUNTING FOR PERSON9 ALIZED MEDICINE AND DIFFERENCES IN PA10 TIENT TREATMENT RESPONSE. 

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi12 sion of law, the Secretary of Health and Human Serv13 ices— 

14 (1) shall not use data obtained from the con15 duct of comparative effectiveness research, including 

16 such research that is conducted or supported using 

17 funds appropriated under the American Recovery 

18 and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) 

19 or authorized or appropriated under the Patient 

20 Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 

21 111–148), to deny or delay coverage of an item or 

22 service under a Federal health care program (as de23 fined in section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act 

24 (42 U.S.C. 1320a–7b(f))); and 

25 (2) shall ensure that comparative effectiveness 

26 research conducted or supported by the Federal 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 133 IS

1 Government accounts for factors contributing to dif2 ferences in the treatment response and treatment 

3 preferences of patients, including patient-reported 

4 outcomes, genomics and personalized medicine, the 

5 unique needs of health disparity populations, and in6 direct patient benefits. 

7 (b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec8 tion shall be construed as affecting the authority of the 

9 Commissioner of Food and Drugs under the Federal 

10 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or the Public Health Serv11 ice Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STEVEN A. MCLEOD

,

Appellant,

v.

DR. MICHAEL W. GILLUM

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 5610

__ ___________________________/

Opinion filed February 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Jefferson County

. Karen A. Gievers , Judge

.

Steven A. McLeod, pro se

, Appellant.

Dr. Michael W. Gillum, pro se

, Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED

.

LEWIS, BILBREY, and KELSEY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
#### Noble WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-209.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 2, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Bennie H. Duck, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof First Investors Financial Services Group, Inc.

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

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

 

4.               The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) forthe Company and based on such evaluation:

 

a)        Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; and

b)       Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report(based on such evaluation); and

c)        Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)     Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
| Date: March 14, 2006 |                     |
|----------------------|--------------------------|
|                 |                     |
|                 | By:                      | /s/ BENNIE H. DUCK |   |
|                 | Bennie H. Duck           |
|                 | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
### Jim Wagoner From: Sent: To : Cc: Subject: Steckel , Andrew [Steckei.Andrew@epa.gov] Monday , July 20 , 2015 11 :39 AM Jim Wagoner ; Sutkus, Caroi@ARB Gong , Kevin ; Drake , Kerry EPA No Comment on Butte Rule 300 

# &EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105
- 3901 July 20, 2015 Transmittal of EPA 

### Rule Review Comments To :

From: Re: Jim Wagoner , Butte County Air Quality Management D i strict jwagoner@bcagmd .org Caro l Sutkus , California Air Resourc es Board csu t kus@a rb
. ca . gov Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief steckel
. andrew@epa
. gov Rule 300 - Open Burning Requirement s, Prohibition s and Ex emptions , v er si on se nt to US EPA on July 16 , 2015 Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft rule revision s identifi e d above
. At this time , we have no c o mments on the proposed revisions to this rule. Please dire ct any question s in this regard to me at (415) 94 7-4115 or to Kevin Gong at (415) 972-3073
.

To t al Con t r ol P a n e l To: jwago ne r (a ·

bcagmd .org From : s tc c kel . andrew (tqe pa , gov Remove th is sender f ro m my allow list
l'o u recei ved t h is message because t he seud e r i

s 0 11 y o ur allow list.

1
#### William CLIFFORD, M.D., Petitioner, v. Reverend Virgil ROACH, S.J., Respondent. NORTH MIAMI GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC., Cross-Petitioner, v. Reverend Virgil ROACH, S.J., Cross-Respondent.

No. 69-741.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 20, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 7, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.