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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS THE FIFTY-TWO WEEK SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM APAC TELESERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES 1998 FORM 10-K AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K FILING.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JAN-03-1999              DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              JAN-03-1999              DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                          3,543                       17
<SECURITIES>                                        0                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  79,627                   67,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                    4,250                      447
<INVENTORY>                                         0                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              104,930                   88,265
<PP&E>                                        152,195                  134,719
<DEPRECIATION>                                 57,602                   38,424
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                267,502                  185,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          87,182                   54,175
<BONDS>                                       132,427                    1,863
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                        0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                        0
<COMMON>                                          489                      488
<OTHER-SE>                                     41,335                  124,295
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  267,502                  185,831
<SALES>                                             0                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              425,028                  350,533
<CGS>                                               0                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 353,979                  268,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              133,312                   48,748
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                3,090                      300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              8,139                    1,499
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (73,492)                   31,809
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (5,200)                   12,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (68,292)                   19,709
<DISCONTINUED>                               (11,028)                 (18,726)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                        0
<CHANGES>                                           0                  (2,200)
<NET-INCOME>                                 (79,320)                  (1,217)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.63)                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.63)                   (0.03)
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. James HAWKINS v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS.

No. 87-KH-2387.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Hawkins, James; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 298-874.

The relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on a motion he has filed to set aside guilty plea and vacate judgment and sentence. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the motion.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

J.H., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D19-1917

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed September 18, 2020. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk 

County; Melissa Gravitt, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,

and Joanna Beth Conner, Assistant

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

VILLANTI, LaROSE, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---
Colstrip Units 1 and 2 (Google Earth) 

Created July 6, 2012
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CHESTER J. BUTTONOW, III,

Appellant,

v.

STATE 0F FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D2023-0738

[January 11, 2024]

Appeal from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Robert Diaz, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2021CT012302A.

Russell J. Williams of Williams Hilal Wigand Grande PLLC, Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, KUNTZ and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Monroe J. Carell, Jr., certify that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Central Parking
Corporation;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary
to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
annual report;

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

         4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

         5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.



Date: December 23, 2003                  By: /s/ MONROE J. CARELL, JR.
                                            -----------------------------------
                                           Monroe J. Carell, Jr.
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### MARTINEZ v. SANCHO, Treasurer.

No. 3505.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Jan. 10, 1940.

F. Fernandez Cuyar and Carlos D. Vazquez, both of San Juan, P. R., for appellant.

William Cattron Rigby, of Washington, D. C. (B. Fernandez Garcia, of San Juan, P. R., and Nathan R. Margold, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellees.

Before WILSON and MAGRUDER, Circuit Judges, and McLELLAN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, appellant, bought a farm on which taxes for prior years had not been paid. Concededly when he bought the land, it was subject to a lien for the unpaid taxes for the current year and the three prior years, this by virtue of legislation by the Puerto Rican Legislature. Later, the defendants caused the property to be attached for these prior taxes and other taxes on the farm. Having paid or tendering taxes which had not become more “than three years old at the time of the attachment, the appellant sought an injunction against the attachment and sale of the land for the older taxes. Such an injunction against the defendants was ob-. tained in the District Court. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico reversed the District Court and dismissed the complaint.

The basic question was and is one involving local laws and the construction of statutes enacted by the Insular Legislature. No provision of the Constitution of the United States, no Act of the Congress, *961no Treaty was discussed or considered by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. None of these is directly involved in this appeal. There is no substantial Federal question to support our jurisdiction. The amount of the taxes here at issue is less than two hundred dollars. The value in controversy is far less than the jurisdictional $5,'000. Our right to hear and determine the appeal rests upon the provisions contained in U.S.Code, Title 28, Section 225, 28 U.S.C.A. § 225, reading, so far as here applicable, as follows:

> “§ 225. Appellate jurisdiction.

> “(a) Review of final decisions. The circuit courts of appeal shall have appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal final decisions.

> * * *

> “Fourth. In the Supreme Courts of the Territory of Hawaii and of Puerto Rico, in all cases, civil or criminal, wherein the Constitution or a statute or treaty of the United States or any authority exercised thereunder is involved; in all other civil cases wherein the value in controversy, exclusive of interests and costs, exceeds $5,-000, and in all habeas corpus proceedings.”

The case at bar is not within the statute.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 23

- 01103

- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF E.S. , a Child From the 224th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023PA00055 Honorable Kimberly Burley , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Beth Watkins , Justice Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Delivered and Filed: May 29, 20 24 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW DENIED Appellant A.S. appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parental rights to her child
E .S. Her court

- appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of t he record, concluding there are no arguable grounds for reversal of the termination order. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (recognizing that Anders procedures apply in parental termination cases). Additionally, counsel represents that she provided
A.S. with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw, advised A.S. of her right to review the record and file her own brief, and informed A.S. ho w to obtain a copy of the record, providing her with a form motion for access to the appellate record. We issued an order setting a deadline for
A.S. to file a pro se brief. However, A.S. did not request the appellate record or file a pro se brief.04

- 23

- 01103

- CV

- 2

- After r eviewing the appellate record and appointed counsel’s brief, we conclude no plausible grounds exist for reversal of the termination order. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s termination order. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw because it does not show good cause for withdrawal. See id. at 27 & n.7 (holding that counsel’s obligations in a parental termination case extend through exhaustion or waiver of all appeals and that withdrawal should be permitted by a court of appeals “only for good cause”).

Beth Watkins , Justice
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 21, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50777

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARMANDO SUAREZ-QUEZADA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-2748

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Armando Suarez-Quezada (Suarez)

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Suarez has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
No. 06-50777

2

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6636]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than April 4, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Amos Kendall Bass III Revocable Trust, Rebecca Sue Bass 
Revocable Trust, and Rebecca Sue Bass, as trustee, all of McAlester, 
Oklahoma; to acquire control of Wilburton State Bancshares, Inc., and 
thereby indirectly acquire control of Wilburton State Bank, both in 
Wilburton, Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 15, 012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-6636 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL11-44-000]

Commission staff members Steve Rodgers and Saeed Farrokhpay, both of the Office of Energy Market Regulation, are assigned to assist in developing tariff provisions that are responsive to the Commission's December 7, 2011 order issued in the above-referenced docket and/or a settlement agreement in this proceeding.

As “non-decisional” staff, Messrs. Rodgers and Farrokhpay will not participate in an advisory capacity in the Commission's review of any future filings in the above-referenced docket, including offers of settlement or settlement agreements.

Different Commission “advisory staff” will be assigned to review and process subsequent filings that are made in the above-referenced docket, including any offer of settlement or settlement agreement. Non-decisional staff and advisory staff are prohibited from subsequent communications with one another concerning matters in the above-referenced docket.

Dated: January 6, 2012.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-642 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2262 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Resmethrin. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Resmethrin. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RESMETHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.10.83 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
|Exhibit 21.01


SUBSIDIARIES OF THE
COMPANY
Elantec Semiconductor International Ltd.
Chamberlain Place
Broadstreet, Bridgetown
Barbados
246-431-0865


Elantec Semiconductor U.K. Ltd.
European Design Centre
Sandringham House
110 Sandringham Avenue
Harlow Business Park, Harlow
Essex CM19 5QA
441-27-633-0900


European Sales Office
3 Edward Court, Wellington Road
Wokingham, Berkshire
RG40 2AN, England
441-18-977-6020


Elantec Semiconductor Japan Ltd.
Japan Technical Center
Queens Tower A 8F
2-3-1 Minato Mirai
Nishi-Ku, Yokohama,
Kanagawa 220-8008 Japan
81-45-682-5820
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2301 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2301

           To suspend temporarily the duty on Boltorn U3000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Brown (for himself and Mr. Voinovich) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To suspend temporarily the duty on Boltorn U3000.

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

SECTION 1. BOLTORN U3000.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Propanoic acid, 3-  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        hydroxy-2-                                                         31/2011.......
                        (hydroxymethyl)-2-
                        methyl-,
                        homopolymer,
                        ester with a-
                        hydro-v-
                        hydroxypoly(oxy-
                        1,2-ethanediyl)
                        ether with 2,2-
                        bis(hydroxymethyl
                        )-1,3-propanediol
                        (4:4:1), 2,2-
                        bis[(2-
                        propenyloxy)methy
                        l]butyl
                        succinates C3-24
                        carboxylates (CAS
                        462113-23-1)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3907.50.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Edward Thomas FRANCIS, Appellee.

No. 4-86-2192.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 8, 1987.

*31Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Bartmon, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

GUNTHER, Judge.

Edward Thomas Francis was convicted of escape contrary to section 944.40, Florida Statutes (1979). The state appeals the three-year sentence and contends the trial court erred in giving the defendant credit for county jail time served prior to sentencing on his escape charge. We agree.

Although section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1979), provides that a defendant is entitled to credit for all the time he spent in the county jail before sentence, such credit should not apply against the escape sentence. *Adams v. Wainwright,*275 So.2d 235 (Fla.1973); *Barger v. State,*310 So.2d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); *Hagans v. State,*395 So.2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and *Danforth v. State,*316 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

In *Dominquez v. State,*403 So.2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), this court indicated that a defendant convicted of escape was entitled to credit for county jail time served and that the credit should be applied to the sentence from which he escaped. Therefore, by implication, credit for county jail time served shall not apply to the escape sentence.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and RIVKIND, LEONARD, Associate Judge, concur.