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

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           7,989
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  313,184
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    270,048
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               626,109
<PP&E>                                         626,740
<DEPRECIATION>                                (96,744)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,011,716
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          489,835
<BONDS>                                      1,148,201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          134,436
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           214
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,952
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,011,716
<SALES>                                      1,043,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,043,109
<CGS>                                          858,792
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  858,792
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,428
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,709
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,979
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,336
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,837
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,837
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 99


                          U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc.
                                4080 Jenkins Road
                          Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421

                                 March 29, 2002

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
450 5/th/ Street, NW
Washington DC  20549

Dear Sirs:

Re:      U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc.
         Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001
         Filed March 29, 2002

This letter is written in accordance with your Temporary Final Rule and Final
Rule: Requirements for Arthur Andersen LLP Auditing Clients Release Nos.
33-8070, 34-45590; 35-27503; 39-2395; IA-2018; IC-25464; FR-62; File No.
S7-03-02.

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 was filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 29, 2002 and included the
accountant's reports of Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") on our consolidated
financial statements. In accordance with Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of
Regulation S-X (as announced in the Andersen Release), please be advised that
Andersen has represented to us in writing the audit was subject to Andersen's
quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice, that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards and that
there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on audits,
availability of national office consultation and availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.

Very truly yours,

U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC.



By: /s/ Ray M. Harlin
    ----------------------------
        Chief Financial Officer
#### Melvin ALSTON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Larry BELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 71-66, 71-93.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 24, 1972.

Stanley R. Andrews, Titusville, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Rodney Durrance, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants Alston and Bell after a jury verdict of guilty of the crime of robbery and an adjudication of guilt were sentenced respectively to periods of 15 years and 10 years of confinement at hard labor. The defendants’ appeals therefrom were consolidated and oral argument waived. We have examined defendants’ allegations of error, which are identical in both cases, reviewed the record and carefully considered all of defendants’ arguments and find them to be without merit. No reversible error having been made to appear the judgments are affirmed. See State v. Davis, Fla. 1971, 243 So.2d 587, and State v. Giesy, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 635; see also Hayden v. State, 1942, 150 Fla. 789, 9 So.2d 180.

REED, C. J., and CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEBRUARY 2, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 08-10751

 

D. C. Docket No. 06-61669 CV-KAM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM L. DORNBROCK, etc., et al.,

Defendants,

INTELEC, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant.

___________

No. 08-15855

____________

D. C. Docket No. 06-61669 CV-KAM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
WILLIAM L. DORNBROCK,

a.k.a. Robert William Lee,

INLAND MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendants,

INTELEC, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

 

(February 2, 2009)

Before DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG, Judge. *

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the January 16, 2008, final order of the district court

that entered judgment following a bench trial. The judgment ordered the

foreclosure of a Fort Lauderdale condominium to satisfy delinquent tax liabilities

of taxpayer William Dornbrock. Intelec, Inc. intervened in the case claiming that

it owns the condominium at issue.

Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, United States Court of International Trade Judge, sitting

*

by designation. 

2
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the

benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s judgment in favor of the

government based on the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order filed on

January 16, 2008.

AFFIRMED.

3
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3439 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3439

  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit a State to 
 provide coverage of room and board furnished by a relative under home 
and community-based waivers under the medicaid program if such coverage 
               may be provided on a budget-neutral basis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 3, 1993

  Mr. Duncan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to permit a State to 
 provide coverage of room and board furnished by a relative under home 
and community-based waivers under the medicaid program if such coverage 
               may be provided on a budget-neutral basis.

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

SECTION 1. COVERAGE OF ROOM AND BOARD FURNISHED BY RELATIVE UNDER HOME 
              AND COMMUNITY-BASED MEDICAID WAIVERS.

    (a) In General.--The second sentence of section 1915(c)(1) of the 
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396n(c)(1)) is amended by inserting 
after ``caregiver'' the following: ``(or, at the option of the State, 
any related personal caregiver, but only if the exercise by the State 
of such option for a year will not result in greater expenditures under 
the State plan during the year than would have been made if the State 
did not exercise the option)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to services furnished under a waiver under section 1915(c) of the 
Social Security Act during quarters beginning on or after January 1, 
1994.

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000027748
<NAME>                        DEL GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES CORP.

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                AUG-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                            320,742
<SECURITIES>                    1,292,852
<RECEIVABLES>                  15,828,675
<ALLOWANCES>                      204,242
<INVENTORY>                    36,599,587
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               61,456,291
<PP&E>                         22,948,062
<DEPRECIATION>                  8,280,002
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 84,103,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          13,706,277
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                          827,866
<OTHER-SE>                     65,522,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   84,103,957
<SALES>                        68,020,978
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               68,020,978
<CGS>                          40,476,778
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  40,476,778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               17,820,437
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                150,026
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 9,573,737
<INCOME-TAX>                    2,902,137
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             6,671,600
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                    6,671,600
<EPS-BASIC>                         .87
<EPS-DILUTED>                         .82



</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                          [LOGO]


                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this registration statement of our report dated March 2, 2000
incorporated by reference in Inverness Medical Technology's Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1999 and to all references to our Form included in this
registration statement.

                                                       /s/  Arthur Andersen LLP
                                                       Arthur Andersen LLP
Boston,  Massachusetts
August 17, 2000
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT RONALD M. LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-1845 MARVIN RUNYON, Postmaster General - United States Postal Service, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-1287-A) Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 24, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Ronald M. Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. James Ennis Macklin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Ronald M. Lewis appeals from the district court's order dismissing his employment discrimination and retaliation action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-16 (West 1994). Lewis alleged discrimination on the basis of his race (black) and sex (male) arising out of his job termination. Atthe close of Lewis' trial evidence, the district court granted Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 motion.On appeal from judgment after a bench trial, this court will not disturb the district court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985); Carter v. Ball , 33 F.3d 450, 457 (4th Cir. 1994). Our review of the record and the district court's reasoning discloses that this appeal is without merit.Lewis failed to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge. See O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. , ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4243 (U.S. Apr. 1, 1996) (No. 95-354); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Lawrence v. Mars, Inc. , 955 F.2d 902, 905-06 (4th Cir.), cert. denied ,506 U.S. 823 (1992). Moreover, given that Lewis failed to demonstrate that the individual who decided to terminate him was aware of the prior Equal Employment Opportunity complaints Lewis had filed, or that a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse action, Lewis likewise has failed to make out a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge. See Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc. , 871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th Cir. 1989); Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp. , 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we cannot saythat the district court's finding of non-discrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. at 574. We therefore affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument
2because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40835 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO RAFAEL TURINO-TURINO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:05-CR-16-ALL

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Francisco Rafael Turino-Turino appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being unlawfully found in the United States after deportation, having previously been convicted of an aggravated felony. He argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000).No. 05-40835 -2- The Government seeks enforcement of the waiver provisions in Turino-Turino’s plea agreement. We decline ruling on the applicability of the waivers because his constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Turino-Turino contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Turino-Turino properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCOS ALIRIO MENOCAL,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-72755

Agency No. A094-287-003

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 26, 2016**

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Marcos Alirio Menocal, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from 

an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of 

removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the 

 

* 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

AUG 3 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-72755 

petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that 

Menocal failed to show the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship 

to his qualifying relatives for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
#### WEEKI WACHEE ORCHID GARDENS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. FLORIDA INLAND THEATRES, INC., (successor to St. Petersburg Springs Company), a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-671.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 16, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 15, 1970.

*603Carl O. Dunbar, Jr., Dunedin, and Richard E. McGee, Sr., Brooksville, for appellant.

E. LaMar Sarra, and Ralph H. Martin and John C. Spencer, of Milam, Martin & Ade, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

This case is on appeal to this Court from an amended final judgment approving an arbitrators’ award following a disagreement between the parties.

Appellant Weeki Wachee Orchid Gardens, Inc., was lessee under a long term written lease with the owner of the property, Florida Inland Theatres, Inc. The property in question adjoined Weeki Wachee Springs, a well-known tourist resort outside of Brooksville in Hernando County, whereon Weeki Wachee had, for some fifteen years prior to the institution of the suit, carried on a wholesale and retail business in growing and selling orchids. On April IS, 1967, Florida Inland Theatres advised Weeki Wachee in writing its desire to terminate the lease, which under the terms thereof it had a right to do, provided it purchased from Weeki Wachee 150% of the market value of “all buildings and other improvements, including landscaping and plants”. Failing to agree on the market value of such items, the parties, as provided in the lease, proceeded accordingly to arbitration. Three arbitrators were agreed upon which, after protracted hearings, found the “full and fair worth” of the improvements and plants in question to be in the sum of $67,732.50. Subsequently the Court, on November 26, 1969, entered its amended final judgment in conformity with said award. Weeki Wachee, being dissatisfied with the award and also the action of the Court approving the award, has appealed to this Court.

The proceedings had before the arbitrators are not generally to be examined by a trial Court or an appellate Court in determining how the arbitrators arrived at their award. Ogden v. Baile, 1917, 73 Fla. 1103, 75 So. 794; Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Gaines Construction Co., Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 242. Such proceedings are not normally part of the award record, and it is incumbent upon the party feeling aggrieved to demonstrate bias or prejudice on the part of the arbitrators and if that burden is not sustained the award must be affirmed. See also 5 Am.Jur.2d Arbitration and Awards, § 186.

The issue here was solely a factual one, and the arbitrators as the finders of fact reconciled the conflicts in evidence. It would serve no good purpose to here analyze the evidence in the record. Suffice to say that reversible error on the part of the trial Court in upholding the arbitrators’ award has not been clearly demonstrated. It therefore, follows that the amended judgment appealed must be and is—

Affirmed, rendering it unnecessary to rule on the motion heretofore filed by the Appellee to dismiss the appeal.

HOBSON, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3462 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3462

To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to expedite the 
permanent placement of foster children by requiring States, at the time 
  a child is placed in foster care, to find any absent parent of the 
   child and evaluate the ability of the absent parent to provide a 
                      suitable home for the child.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 1993

 Mrs. Maloney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to expedite the 
permanent placement of foster children by requiring States, at the time 
  a child is placed in foster care, to find any absent parent of the 
   child and evaluate the ability of the absent parent to provide a 
                      suitable home for the child.

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

SECTION 1. PROCEDURES TO EXPEDITE THE PERMANENT PLACEMENT OF FOSTER 
              CHILDREN.

    (a) In General.--Section 474 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
674) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) The Secretary may not make a payment to a State for a 
calendar quarter under subsection (a) unless the State has in effect 
procedures requiring the State agency, at the time a child is removed 
from a home and placed in foster care under the supervision of the 
State, to locate any parent of the child who is not living at the home, 
and evaluate the ability of the parent to provide a suitable home for 
the child.''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) of this 
section shall not apply with respect to any child who, on the date of 
the enactment of this Act, is in foster care under the supervision of a 
State (as defined in section 1101(a)(1) of the Social Security Act for 
purposes of title IV of such Act).

                                 <all>
```