alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Table 5.  Homeownership Rates for the United States:
                   1965 to 1996                                    
                                                    
                                                     
                 First    Second     Third     Fourth
    Year       Quarter   Quarter   Quarter    Quarter
                                                    
 1996......      65.1      65.4                     
 1995.......     64.2      64.7      65.0       65.1
 1994.......     63.8      63.8      64.1       64.2
 1993\r.....     63.7      63.9      64.2       64.2
                                                    
 1993.......     64.2      64.4      64.7       64.6
 1992.......     64.0      63.9      64.3       64.4
 1991.......     63.9      63.9      64.2       64.2
 1990.......     64.0      63.7      64.0       64.1
 1989\r.....     63.9      63.8      64.1       63.8
                                                   
 1989.......     63.9      63.9      64.0       63.8
 1988.......     63.7      63.7      64.0       63.8
 1987.......     63.8      63.8      64.2       64.1
 1986.......     63.6      63.8      63.8       63.9
 1985.......     64.1      64.1      63.9       63.5
 1984.......     64.6      64.6      64.6       64.1
 1983.......     64.7      64.7      64.8       64.4
 1982.......     64.8      64.9      64.9       64.5
 1981.......     65.6      65.3      65.6       65.2
 1980.......     65.5      65.5      65.8       65.5
 1979\r.....     64.8      64.9      65.8       65.4
                                                    
 1979.......     65.3      65.1      66.0       65.8
 1978.......     64.8      64.4      65.2       65.4
 1977.......     64.8      64.5      65.0       64.9
 1976.......     64.6      64.6      64.9       64.8
 1975.......     64.4      64.9      64.6       64.5
 1974.......     64.8      64.8      64.6       64.4
 1973.......     64.9      64.4      64.4       64.4
 1972.......     64.3      64.5      64.3       64.4
 1971.......     64.0      64.1      64.4       64.5
 1970.......     64.3      64.0      64.4       64.0
 1969.......     64.1      64.4      64.4       64.4
 1968.......     63.6      64.1      64.1       63.6
 1967.......     63.3      63.9      63.8       63.5
 1966.......     63.5      63.2      63.3       63.8
 1965.......     62.9      62.9      62.9       63.4

 \r Revised.   

Source: U.S. Census Bureau
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OF AEARO CORPORATION AS OF JUNE 30, 2000
(UNAUDITED) AND SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND 1999
CONTAINED IN AEARO CORPORATION'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,780
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,792
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     35,003
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                88,367
<PP&E>                                          98,593
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,821
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 276,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,423
<BONDS>                                        186,990
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,458
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   276,023
<SALES>                                        229,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               229,782
<CGS>                                          122,333
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                79,934
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,216
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,509
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,707
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,707
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (9.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (9.35)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6427

HAYWARD LEON ROGERS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE L. RUSHTON; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (8:05-cv-01555-MBS) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: July 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hayward Leon Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Hayward Leon Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of APAC CustomerServices, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended March 28,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), Robert J. Keller, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,and Marc T. Tanenberg, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

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

 
| /s/ Robert J. Keller           |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Name: Robert J. Keller         |
| Title: Chief Executive Officer |
| Date: May 7, 2004              |
|                           |
| /s/ Marc T. Tanenberg          |   |
| Name: Marc T. Tanenberg        |
| Title: Chief Financial Officer |
| Date: May 7, 2004              |

 

This certification accompanies theReport pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemedfiled by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofthe Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing.

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                                                             Exhibit 18

World Airways, Inc.
Herndon, Virginia

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have been furnished with a copy of the Form 10-Q of World Airways, Inc. (the
"Company") for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2000, and have read
the Company's statements contained in Note 2 to the condensed financial
statements included therein.  As stated in Note 2, the Company changed its
method of accounting for certain aircraft maintenance costs from the accrual
method of accounting to the direct expense method.  Under the new accounting
method, maintenance costs are recognized as expense as maintenance services are
performed and as flight hours are flown for nonrefundable maintenance payments
required by lease agreements.  Also, as stated in Note 2, the Company believes
the newly adopted accounting principle is preferable in the circumstances
because the direct expense method is the predominant method used in the airline
industry and there has not been an obligating event prior to the maintenance
services being performed or flight hours being flown.  In accordance with your
request, we have reviewed and discussed with officials of the Company the
circumstances and business judgment and planning upon which the decision to make
this change in the method of accounting was based.

We have not audited any financial statements of the Company as of any date or
for any period subsequent to December 31, 1999, nor have we audited the
information set forth in the aforementioned Note 2 to the condensed financial
statements; accordingly, we do not express an opinion concerning the factual
information contained therein.

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have
not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method
of accounting over another acceptable method.  However, for purposes of the
Company's compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, we are furnishing this letter.

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management's business
judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is
preferable in the Company's circumstances.

Very truly yours,

/s/ KPMG LLP


McLean, Virginia
November 10, 2000
#### Arthur RHODES, Appellant, v. COMMERCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MISSOURI, Appellee.

No. 66-526.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Jan. 24, 1967.

William W. Charles, Miami, for appellant.

Smathers & Thompson, Miami, for ap-pellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This cause has been presented to the court without oral argument. The briefs .and record on appeal have been read and •given full consideration, and appellant "having failed to clearly demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower ■court hereby appealed is affirmed.
#### Eleanor Ruth Gentry SHEPARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Ruff SHEPARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11780.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Feb. 29, 1972.

Hal V. Lyons, Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.

Maynard E. Cush, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before AYRES, BOLIN and HALL, JJ.

BOLIN, Judge.

Mr. and Mrs. Shepard were divorced and the mother was awarded the permanent custody of a minor child, issue of the marriage, together with child support in the amount of $50 per month. Soon thereafter the wife remarried and left the continental limits of the United States with her second husband,and the child. The father instituted a rule nisi, seeking to be allowed to discontinue payments for child support because the mother had moved with the child to a place so remote as to make his visitation with his child virtually impossible.

Prior to a hearing on the rule the mother returned to the United States, filed a rule against her first husband to show cause why the past due alimony should not be made executory, and why the father should not be held in contempt of court.

There is no transcript of evidence or narrative of facts, but the minutes of court reflect the rules were submitted on briefs. For written reasons the trial judge denied *430the father’s request to discontinue child support; made the past due alimony in the sum of $650 executory but recalled the rule for contempt. He further found the mother was justified in moving overseas with her child in order to be with her second husband who was stationed in England with the Armed Services. According to the trial judge, it was stipulated Mr. Shepard made no support payments while the child was overseas, but that “she had recently returned to the United States”. From a formal judgment signed in accordance with the opinion, Mr. Shepard appeals.

Appellant contends on appeal the decision of the trial court should be reversed and that child support should have been terminated during the child’s absence from the United States. From our study of the written opinion of the trial judge, which contains the only evidence before us, we find appellant’s contentions are without merit.

The judgment is affirmed at appellant’s cost.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MAT T HE W R OB E R T YO UN G, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. M A X W IL L IA M S , D i r. of C orre ct i on s; et a l., R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 08- 35431 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 6 - c v - 0 1 5 1 1 - ST ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon M i c ha e l W . M os m a n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d A ugus t10, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , H A W K IN S , an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a tthe w R obe rtY oung, a n O r e gon s t a t e pr i s one r , appe a l s pr o s e f r om the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s o r d e r s d e n y in g Y o u n g ’s m o tio n s u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f C iv il P r oc e dur e 60( b) f

orr e l i e f f r om the j udgm e ntdi s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983



# FI LED AU G 30 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 35431 2 a c t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of d is c r e tio n , C a l. D e

p ’ t o f So c . Se r vs . v . L e a v itt , 52 3 F . 3d 10 25 , 10 31 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) , a n d w e a f

f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng Y oung’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on s. C on traryt o Y ou ng ’ s c on t ent i on , the di stri ctcourthad j uri sdi ct i on ov er thi s m a tt e runde r28 U . S . C . § 1331, w hi c h pr ovi de s tha t“ di s tr i c tc our t s s ha l l ha ve or i gi na l j ur i s di c t i on of

a l l c i vi l a c t i ons a r i s i ng unde rthe C ons t i tut i on, l a w s , or tr e a tie s o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s .” A d is tr ic t ju d g e m a y d e s ig n a te am a g is tr a te ju d g e to he a ra nd de t e rm i ne c e rt a i n non- di s pos i t i ve pr e tr i a l m a tt e r s , a nd t o c onduc the a r i ngs and sub m i tt o the di stri ctcourtfi nd i ng s of f ac tand recom m endat i on s on o ther m a tte r s . See 28 U . S . C . § 636( b) ( 1) . A l though am a gi s tr a t e j udge m a y , upon the consentof al l part i es , exer ci se j uri sdi ct i on ov eral l proceedi ng s i n a ci vi l m att er , s e e i d. at§ 6 36 (c ), here , the part i es had n otconsent ed. T here fore , j uri sdi ct i on ov er the c a s e r e m a i ne d w i th the di s tr i c tj udge , a nd the m a gi s tr a t e j udge di d notha ve the autho ri ty t o d ec i de the di sposi t i ve m ot i on s f i l ed by Y ou ng or t o ent eran order d is m is s in g th e c a s e . Se e i d. § 6 36 (b), (c ). Y ou ng ’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are no tpers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         901,875
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,952,431
<ALLOWANCES>                                   231,000
<INVENTORY>                                    8,469,375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               15,445,643
<PP&E>                                         8,940,063
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,232,416
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,162,873
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,030,039
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       12,196,004
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,162,873
<SALES>                                        19,663,142
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               19,663,142
<CGS>                                          14,679,388
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,165,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (181,732)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             539,486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                460,621
<INCOME-TAX>                                   225,287
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            235,334
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   235,334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.16



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of CPI Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending
February 1, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Gary W. Douglass, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Subsection 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Subsection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934; and


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



By:  /s/ Gary W. Douglass
     --------------------------
         Gary W. Douglass
         Chief Financial Officer
         May 12, 2003
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 23.1


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report
on the financial statements of SureBeam Corporation dated August 10, 2000 and
to all references to our Firm included in or made a part of this registration
statement.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


San Diego, California
August 14, 2000
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0705. CICELY MITCHELL v. TRAVIS GRANT, III. 

This appeal stems from a custody proceeding in which Cicely Mitchell filed a

motion to dismissthe counterclaimfor modification of custody, filed byTravis Grant,

III. The trial court denied Mitchell’s motion to dismiss and allowed Grant to proceed

with his counterclaim. Mitchell then filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

“All judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change,

or modifying child custody” are directly appealable. OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11). The

order at issue here, however, did not include any decision as to custody. Instead, it

merely denied Mitchell’s motion to dismiss Grant’s counterclaimfor modification of

custody. Therefore, it is an interlocutory ruling that may be appealed only by

following the interlocutory appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Davis v.

Davis, 242 Ga. 322, 322 (249 SE2d 90) (1978); see also Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga.

App. 829, 830 (747 SE2d 21) (2013). Mitchell’s failure to comply with the

interlocutory appeal requirements deprives us of jurisdiction to review this appeal,

which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

December 09, 2019

12/09/2019
261 La. 537

#### CITY STORES COMPANY v. Quimet J. PETERSEN.

No. 52369.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 18, 1972.

In re: Quimet J. Petersen applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Granted (see order).

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Gerald P. Fedoroff, Judge of the Civil District, Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 4th day of October, 1972, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### Nicholas RE, Petitioner, v. Robert B. RICHARDSON and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 35478.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 12, 1967.

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1967.

Samuel Sheradsky, Miami, for petitioner.

Williams & Jabara, Miami, Patrick H. Mears, Tallahassee, and J. Franklin Garner, Lakeland, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition, for a writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date April 22, 1966.

After having heard oral argument, and after our consideration of the petition, the record and briefs, we conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

The petitions for certiorari and for attorney’s fees are, therefore, denied.

It is so ordered.

THOMAS, ROBERTS, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JTJT., concur.

THORNAL, C. J., dissents with opinion.

THORNAL, Chief Justice

(dissenting).

I dissent on the authority of Stephens v. Winn-Dixie Stores, opinion filed January 25, 1967, and, Evans v. Florida Industrial Commision, Fla., 196 So.2d 748, opinion filed February 1, 1967.