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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          48,813
<SECURITIES>                                    92,094
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,927
<ALLOWANCES>                                       634
<INVENTORY>                                      6,607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               165,461
<PP&E>                                          18,622
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,761
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 175,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,323
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            47
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   175,653
<SALES>                                         30,139
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,139
<CGS>                                           18,747
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,698
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   217
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   848
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,312)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        99
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,411)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,411)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.33)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0157

IN THE MATTER OF:

Z.N.-M.,

A Youth in Need of Care.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant Mother’s motion to supplement the record 

the, and good cause appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant Mother’s motion to 

supplement the record is GRANTED. The transcripts of the January 29, 2019, 

hearing shall be placed in the file of this Court.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 14 2023

07/14/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0157
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No 21-7740

EDWARD WITHERSPOON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK B. BISHOP; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:19-cv-01663-TDC)

Submitted: March 24, 2022 Decided: March 29, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Witherspoon seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). Because the district court denied relief on procedural grounds, Witherspoon

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the 

petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 

565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Witherspoon’s informal 

brief, we conclude that Witherspoon has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 

34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief 

is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues 

preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we deny Witherspoon’s motion for 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 this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Tina SCATA, Appellant, v. ZIP APPLIANCE SERVICE, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 72-836.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 10, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Montgomery R. Tutt, *et al,*Plaintiffs in Error, *vs.*Mathias Zenir, Defendant in Error.

1. Tutt v. Boyer, ante p. 425 affirmed.

*Error to Henry County Common Pleas Court.*

*W. P. Wright,*for Plaintiff in Error.

*McBeth & Price,*for Defendant in Error.

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case in all essential particulars is the same as Montgomery Tutt and others vs. Boyer decided at this term of the Court, except that this land was expressly included in the order of sale. The part of lot sold in this case was not sold when advertised for sale but on the day it was advertised to be sold the County Court modified the order of sale so as to authorize a private sale — which was made- and regularly reported — and the report duly approved. *We*think the County Court had the power to modify the order of sale so as to authorize a private sale.

The judgment of approval cannot be impeached in this ejectment.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

The other judges concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3542 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3542

  To amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the manufacture, 
    importation, and sale of certain particularly dangerous bullets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 1993

 Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the manufacture, 
    importation, and sale of certain particularly dangerous bullets.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That section 921(a)(17) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
    ``(B) The term `armor piercing ammunition' means--
            ``(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in 
        a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the 
        presence of traces of other substances) from one or a 
        combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, 
        beryllium copper, or depleted uranium;
            ``(ii) a jacketed, hollow point projectile which may be 
        used in a handgun and the jacket of which is designed to 
        produce, upon impact, evenly spaced sharp or barb-like 
        projections that extent beyond the diameter of the unfired 
        projectile; or
            ``(iii) a jacketed projectile which may be used in a 
        handgun and the jacket of which has a weight of more than 25 
        percent of the total weight of the projectile.
    ``(C) The term `armor piercing ammunition' does not include shotgun 
shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for 
hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, 
a projectile which the Secretary finds is primarily intended to be used 
for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which 
the Secretary finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, 
including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.''.

                                 <all>
```
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3516 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3516

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for assistance for 
 highway relocation regarding the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National 
                       Military Park in Georgia.





103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3516

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
To increase the amount authorized to be appropriated for assistance for 
 highway relocation regarding the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National 
                       Military Park in Georgia.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    Section 1(c) of the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize and direct 
the National Park Service to assist the State of Georgia in relocating 
a highway affecting the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military 
Park in Georgia'', approved December 24, 1987 (101 Stat. 1442), is 
amended by striking ``$30,000,000'' and inserting ``$45,000,000''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 21, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3246

AN ACT

To amend title 39, United States Code, to make applicable

with respect to the United States Postal Service certain

exclusionary authority relating to the treatment of reemployed annuitants under the civil service retirement laws,

and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXCLUSIONARY AUTHORITY.

4 Section 1005(d) of title 39, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) by striking ‘‘(d)’’ and inserting ‘‘(d)(1)’’;

7 and

8 (2) by adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(2) The provisions of subsections (i) and (l)(2) of

10 section 8344, and of subsections (f) and (i)(2) of section

11 8468, of title 5 shall apply with respect to the Postal Serv12 ice. For purposes of so applying such provisions—
2

•HR 3246 EH

1 ‘‘(A) any reference in such provisions to the

2 head of an Executive agency shall be considered a

3 reference to the Postmaster General; and

4 ‘‘(B) any reference in such provisions to an em5 ployee shall be considered a reference to an officer

6 or employee of the Postal Service.’’.

7 SEC. 2. ASSIGNMENT AUTHORITY.

8 Section 8706(e) of title 5, United States Code, is

9 amended—

10 (1) by striking ‘‘Federal judge’’ and inserting

11 ‘‘employee or former employee’’;

12 (2) by striking ‘‘judge’s’’ and inserting ‘‘em13 ployee’s or former employee’s’’; and

14 (3) by striking ‘‘purchase’’ and inserting ‘‘pur15 chased’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3246

AN ACT

To amend title 39, United States Code, to make

other purposes.under the civil service retirement laws, and forlating to the treatment of reemployed annuitantsPostal Service certain exclusionary authority reapplicable with respect to the United States
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ADALBERTO CARDENAS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-258

[April 16, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Geoffrey D. Cohen, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14-12329 

CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., CIKLIN, J., and BOKOR, ALEXANDER, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Order issued August 18, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-01079-CV

———————————

HORIZON POOLS & LANDSCAPES, INC. AND CURT OLMSTEAD, 

Appellants

V.

NELSON SUCARICHI, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th Judicial District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 81251-CV

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellant Curt Olmstead has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss his

individual appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal filed by Curt 

Olmstead. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). The appeal of Horizon Pools & 

Landscapes, Inc. remains pending.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd.
Exhibit 31-29**FORM 10-K CERTIFICATION**I, Anthony F. Earley, Jr., certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Detroit Edison Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. (Intentionally omitted)  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented 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 onsuch evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.   /s/ ANTHONY F. EARLEY, JR. Anthony F. Earley, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
# C_2014021EN.01000101.xml

| 24.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 21/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7006 — OAO LUKOIL/Lubricants business OMV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 21/01

On 15 January 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7006. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7006. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 12


                John Deere Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries
               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                             (thousands of dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                             2002       2001       2000       1999       1998
                           --------   --------   --------   --------   --------
<S>                        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Earnings:

  Income before income
    taxes and changes
    in accounting          $370,972   $245,662   $216,712   $235,760   $233,534

  Fixed charges             382,547   $459,348    447,169    366,102    373,237
                           --------   --------   --------   --------   --------

    Total earnings         $753,519   $705,010   $663,881   $601,862   $606,771
                           ========   ========   ========   ========   ========

Fixed charges:

  Interest expense         $374,883   $452,032   $440,220   $360,925   $368,381

  Rent expense                7,664   $  7,316      6,949      5,177      4,856
                           --------   --------   --------   --------   --------

    Total fixed charges    $382,547   $459,348   $447,169   $366,102   $373,237
                           ========   ========   ========   ========   ========

Ratio of earnings to
   fixed charges *             1.97       1.53       1.48       1.64       1.63
                           ========    ========  ========   ========   ========
</TABLE>

___________

"Earnings" consist of income before income taxes, the cumulative effect of
changes in accounting and fixed charges. "Fixed charges" consist of interest on
indebtedness, amortization of debt discount and expense, an estimated amount of
rental expense under capitalized leases which is deemed to be representative of
the interest factor and rental expense under operating leases.

*    The Company has not issued preferred stock. Therefore, the ratios of
     earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends are the
     same as the ratios presented above.
***Exhibit 32.2***
***Certification ofChief Financial Officer (1)***
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certification is being made toaccompany the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedJuly 31, 2004:
In connection with the Annual Report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas V. Gilboy,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to myknowledge:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.       /s/ Mark A. Koch       Name: Mark A. Koch   Principal Accounting Officer   Date: October 29, 2004  
(1) A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Del Global Technologies Corp and will be retainedby Del Global Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.   The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as aseparate disclosure document.
-4-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7565
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus OSCAR APONTE ROSARIO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CR-00-47-4, CA-02-55-4) Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Oscar Aponte Rosario, Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Oscar Aponte Rosario seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rosario has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 2003 WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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