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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          31,649
<SECURITIES>                                     9,745
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,040
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,657
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,111
<PP&E>                                          17,543
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (6,377)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  89,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,845
<BONDS>                                          2,186
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        81,033
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3,251)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    89,813
<SALES>                                         33,155
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,155
<CGS>                                           24,426
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,064
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (1,806)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18,529)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (6,746)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,783)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.49)
        



</TABLE>
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 050 0 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 2010 - SW - 0 14 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
Exhibit 32.1



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 Quarterly Report of Laycor Ventures Corp.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period end December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Robert Wayne Morgan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Dated this 14th day of February, 2007.



| | ROBERT WAYNE MORGAN                                
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Robert Wayne Morgan                                
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer













---
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 

ALISON KOHLER,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY,

Agency.

DOCKET NUMBER

NY-0752-15-0199-M-1

DATE: December 28, 2016

THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL*

Alison Kohler, Oceanside, New York, pro se.

Shayla N.M. Sipp, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Mark A. Robbins, Member

REMAND ORDER

¶1 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has remanded this case at 

the Board’s request. Kohler v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 

2016-1835, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016). The Board VACATES its prior 

split-vote order in the underlying case, MSPB Docket No. NY-0752-15-0199-I-1, 

 

* A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add 

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, 

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not 

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a 

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board 

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c). 
2

and REMANDS the case to the administrative judge for further consideration in 

light of the Court’s decision in Mitchell v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 

741 F.3d 81 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

FOR THE BOARD:

Washington, D.C.

______________________________

Jennifer Everling

Acting Clerk of the Board
# FILED
January 21, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NA SHVILLE DECEMBER 1997 SES SION
) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9703-CC-00096 Appellee, ) ) Rutherford County V. ) ) Honorable J. S. Da niel, Judge ) LINCOLN C. FRENCHELL, ) (Sentencing) ) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: Gerald L. Melton John Knox Walkup District Public Defender Attorney General & Repor ter Jeffrey S. Burton Sarah M. Branch Assistant Public Defender Counsel for the State 201 West Main Street 450 James Robertson Parkwa y Suite 101, Cou rt Square Bldg. Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Murfreesboro, TN 37130 William C. W hitesell District Attorney General Paul A. Holcombe, III Assistant District A

ttorney General Rutherford County Judici al Building Murfreesboro, TN 37130

OPINION FILED: ___________________
AFFIRMED PAUL G. SUMM ERS, Judge-2- O P I N I O N The appellant, Lincoln C. Fre nchell, pled guilty to theft of property valued over $1000 and received a sentence of two years s upervised probation w ith diversion. However, approximately one month later, the district attorney’s office filed a motion to terminate the appell ant’s diversion because he had misrepresented to the court hi s lack of a prior crimin al record. The appellant has a felony record in New

York. Also, whi le on probation, the appellant v iolated the conditions of his probation. After a revocation/senten cing hearing, the trial court revoked the appellant’s probation and sentenced him to two years in prison. He now appeals that judgment.
The appellant violated the conditions of his diversionary probation: rule (4), failure to provide verification of employment; rule (5), failure to inf orm probatio n offic er that he had moved from his local add ress and f ailure to receive permission before leaving the state; rule (6), failur e to report; rule (8), fail ure to pay probation fees; and rule (10), failure to pay court costs. Despite these violations, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying him probation.
Whether viewed as a sentencing hear ing or a revocation proceeding, the appellant has not overcome the presumption of correctness of the co urt’s ruling. The trial court did not abuse i ts discretion by rev

oking the appellant’s probation and sentencing him to two years in prison. See State v. Harkins , 811 S.W.2d 79, 82 (Tenn. 1991). Also, “[u]pon revocation, the orig inal sentence imposed can be placed into effect.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-310 (1990) Sentencing Commission Comments. Finding no error in the trial court’s ruling, w e affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. Crim. R. App.

______________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Ju dge-3- CONCUR:

______________________________ JOSEPH B. JONES, Presiding Judge

______________________________ WILLIA M M. BARKER, Judge
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 50

Designating March 25, 1999, as ‘‘Greek Independence Day: A National Day

of Celebration of Greek and American Democracy’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 25, 1999

Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mrs. BOXER, Mr.

COCHRAN, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. DODD, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr.

DOMENICI, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr.

GRASSLEY, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. GREGG, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. HAGEL, Mr.

KENNEDY, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. KERREY, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. KERRY, Mr.

ROTH, Mr. KOHL, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. SHELBY, Mr.

LEVIN, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. SMITH of

Oregon, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. STEVENS, Mrs.

MURRAY, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. REED, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. REID, Mr. WARNER, Mr. ROBB, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. HATCH, Mr.

SARBANES, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. HELMS, and Mr.

CHAFEE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

MARCH 18, 1999

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Designating March 25, 1999, as ‘‘Greek Independence Day:

A National Day of Celebration of Greek and American

Democracy’’.

Whereas the ancient Greeks developed the concept of democracy, in which the supreme power to govern was invested

in the people;
2

SRES 50 ATS

Whereas the Founding Fathers of the United States of America drew heavily upon the political experience and philosophy of ancient Greece in forming our representative democracy;

Whereas the founders of the modern Greek state modeled

their government after that of the United States in an

effort to best imitate their ancient democracy;

Whereas Greece is one of the only 3 nations in the world, beyond the former British Empire, that has been allied with

the United States in every major international conflict

this century;

Whereas the heroism displayed in the historic World War II

Battle of Crete epitomized Greece’s sacrifice for freedom

and democracy as it presented the Axis land war with its

first major setback and set off a chain of events which

significantly affected the outcome of World War II;

Whereas these and other ideals have forged a close bond between our 2 nations and their peoples;

Whereas March 25, 1999, marks the 178th anniversary of

the beginning of the revolution which freed the Greek

people from the Ottoman Empire; and

Whereas it is proper and desirable to celebrate with the

Greek people and to reaffirm the democratic principles

from which our 2 great nations were born: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) designates March 25, 1999, as ‘‘Greek

3 Independence Day: A National Day of Celebration of

4 Greek and American Democracy’’; and
3

SRES 50 ATS

1 (2) requests the President to issue a proclama2 tion calling upon the people of the United States to

3 observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and ac4 tivities.

Æ
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0962 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-CE-028-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20475-20476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8014]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>13058 and <greek-i>13059]


West Virginia Disaster <greek-i>WV-00025

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of West Virginia 
(FEMA-4061-DR), dated 03/22/2012.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides.
    Incident Period: 03/15/2012 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 03/22/2012.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/21/2012.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 12/24/2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 03/22/2012, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties:
    Lincoln, Logan, Mingo.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere.....      3.125
Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere..      3.000
For Economic Injury:
Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere..      3.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13058B 
and for economic injury is 13059B.


[[Page 20476]]


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-8014 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 361 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 361

To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Rules and 
                                Manual.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 26 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

Mr. McConnell submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
               the Committee on Rules and Administration

            October 3 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

                        Considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To authorize the printing of a revised edition of the Senate Rules and 
                                Manual.

    Resolved, That (a) the Committee on Rules and Administration shall 
prepare a revised edition of the Senate Rules and Manual for the use of 
the 106th Congress.
    (b) The manual shall be printed as a Senate document.
    (c) In addition to the usual number of documents, 1,400 additional 
copies of the manual shall be bound of which--
            (1) 500 paperbound copies shall be for the use of the 
        Senate; and
            (2) 900 copies shall be bound (500 paperbound; 200 
        nontabbed black skiver; 200 tabbed black skiver) and delivered 
        as may be directed by the Committee on Rules and 
        Administration.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Paul J. AZAR, Jr., M.D.

No. 89-KK-1582.

Supreme Court of Louisiana,

June 30, 1989.

In re State of Louisiana applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs to the 15th Judicial District Court, No. 87-CR-55105; 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal, No. KW89-0693, Parish of Lafayette.

Denied.

*1230WATSON, J.,

would grant with an order noting that the *Simpson*ruling applies, in his personal view, only to that capital case and only to other cases prospectively under an appropriate system to be devised by the able judges of the 15th JDC.
#### Tilmon W. REID v. GAMB, INC., d/b/a Stark’s Family Restaurant.

No. 87-C-0110.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 6, 1987.

In re Reid, Tilmon W.; applying for supervisory writ; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 85-1237; Parish of Avo-yelles, 12th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 84-5913.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 644.

Granted.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: ____2014______-NM-____074______-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
391 A.2d 677

#### Commonwealth v. Campbell, Appellant.

*592Submitted March 30, 1977.

Burton A. Rose, for appellant; Marianne E. Cox, Assistant District Attorney, and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### In re the MARRIAGE OF Jennie L. KRISE, Appellant, and Warren D. Krise, Appellee.

No. 82CA0578.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Feb. 10, 1983.

*921Susan M. Lach, P.C., Fort Collins, for appellant.

March, Myatt, Korb, Carroll & Brandes, Joseph T. Carroll, Jr., Fort Collins, for ap-pellee.

SMITH, Judge.

In this dissolution of marriage action, Jeanie L. Krise appeals from permanent orders entered regarding child support and maintenance. We affirm.

Upon completion of the hearings in this matter, the trial court awarded wife a total of $845 a month in child support and maintenance. On appeal, she contends that the evidence supported an award of $1,450 a month, and that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring that appellant apply income earned upon her share of the property settlement toward her living expenses. These arguments are without merit.

Awards of child support and maintenance are matters generally within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be set aside on appellate review in the absence of an abuse of discretion. *In re Marriage of Hartford,*44 Colo.App. 303, 612 P.2d 1163 (1980). The relevant factors to be considered by the trial court in determining maintenance and support are set forth in §§ 14-10-114 and 14-10-115, C.R.S.1973. Our review of the record reveals, contrary to wife’s contention, that the award relative to child support and maintenance reflects consideration of the factors set forth in the statutes. Therefore, we see no abuse of discretion here. *See in Re Marriage of Jones,*Colo., 627 P.2d 248 (1981).

In response to appellant’s contention that the trial court improperly considered the income producing potential of property she received in the property settlement, we need only quote from § 14-10-114, C.R.S. 1973, as follows:

> “(2) The maintenance order shall be in such amounts ... as the court deems fit .. . after considering all relevant factors including:

> (a) The financial resources of the party seeking maintenance including marital property apportioned to [her] .... ”

No abuse of discretion being apparent, the judgment is affirmed.

PIERCE and TURSI, JJ., concur.