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

<ARTICLE> CT
<CIK> 0000879555
<NAME> BOSTON CAPITAL TAX CREDIT FUND III L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             134,987,523
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               134,987,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,299
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,374,172)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,241,873)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 17, 2015

No. 04-15-00022-CV

IN THE MATTER OF PAR, A JUVENILE,

From the County Court at Law, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1753

Honorable Vivian Torres, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief in this juvenile appeal was originally due on April 1, 2015. Neither the 

brief nor a motion for extension of time has been filed. Appellant is represented on appeal by

appointed counsel Ms. Sara Ruth Spector. It is therefore ORDERED that Ms. Spector file 

appellant’s brief no later than May 1, 2015. 

If Ms. Spector does not file appellant’s brief by May 1, 2015, this cause will be abated for 

the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether: (1) appellant desires to prosecute his 

appeal; (2) appellant is indigent, and if so, the trial court shall take such measures as may be 

necessary to assure the effective assistance of counsel, which may include the appointment of 

new counsel; and (3) counsel has abandoned the appeal. Because sanctions may be necessary, 

the trial court will be asked to address this issue even if new counsel is retained or substituted 

before the date of the hearing. 

The Clerk of this court shall cause a copy of this order to be served on Ms. Spector by 

certified mail, return receipt requested, and by United States mail. The Clerk of this court shall 

also fax a copy of this order to the Honorable Vivian Torres, presiding judge of the Medina 

County, Texas, County Court at Law.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 17th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Ramsey v. State

23288

08/28/2001

Affirmed
##### 



Exhibit 32.5
  SECTION 1350
    CERTIFICATION OF
    CILCORP INC.
    (required by Section 906 of the
    Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  Form 10-K Form 10-K),
  (1)
    The
    Form 10-K
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m
    or 78o(d)); and(2)
    The information contained in the
    Form 10-K
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Date:
    February 29, 2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAJVIR SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-70603

Agency No. A097-587-029

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2015** 

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Rajvir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

APR 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d

983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s untimely motion to

reopen, because it considered the record and Singh’s evidence, and acted within its

broad discretion in determining it was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh

v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to

reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”); see

also Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioner failed to

satisfy “‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new

evidence would likely change the result in the case.”) (quoting Matter of Coelho,

20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 09-70603
MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT REGULATION II PERMITS

3/21/2001 Rule 204 (Cancellation of Applications) 1 RULE 204. CANCELLATION OF APPLICATIONS (Adopted 1-19-70; Revised 12-13-84, 7-17-85, and 3-21-2001.) CONTENTS PART 1 GENERAL ......................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose .......................................................... 1 1.2 Applicability ...................................................... 1 1.3 Exemptions ....................................................... 1 1.4 Effective Dates .................................................... 2 1.5 References ....................................................... 2 PART 2DEFINITIONS ...................................................... 2 PART 3 REQUIREMENTS ................................................... 2 3.1 Cancellation of Application ........................................... 2

PART 1 GENERAL 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Rule is to establish provisions for the cancellation of applications. 1.2 Applicability The provisions of this Rule shall apply to any person who applies for a District Permit. 1.3 Exemptions Reserved.MONTEREY BAY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT REGULATION II PERMITS

3/21/2001 Rule 204 (Cancellation of Applications) 2 1.4 Effective Dates This Rule, as most recently revised, is effective on March 21, 2001. 1.5 References The requirements of this Rule arise from the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Sections 40702 and 42300. Referenced or related District Rules include: 101 (Definitions); 200 (Permits Required); and 201 (Sources Not Requiring Permits).

PART 2DEFINITIONS Reserved.

PART 3 REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Cancellation of Application An Authority to Construct shall expire and the application shall be cancelled two (2) years from the date of issuance of the Authority to Construct; provided, however, that the District may extend the time period, in increments of up to 2 years at a time, when it can be demonstrated that the applicant has been and is actively, diligently pursuing the project. Such time extensions cannot exceed seven (7) years from the date the Authority to Construct is first issued * * * * *
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply491Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Troy Bell (not verified)PermalinkFebruary 11, 2021 - 2:49pmI too being a clock collector googled to find the history of the clock in the Senate hall ie the Voigt Clock.
Thanks for the history of all the clocks.
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
21134

#### State v. Caban

Affirmed
#### Toguchi v. Kubo

16003

1/31/96

Affirmed
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83936-83937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26385]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP24-168-000.
    Applicants: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Annual Cash-Out Activity Report 
2023 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-169-000.
    Applicants: Crescent Point Energy Corp., Crescent Point Resources 
Partnership.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Capacity Release 
Regulations, et al. of Crescent Point Energy Corp., et al.
    Filed Date: 11/22/23.
    Accession Number: 20231122-5218.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a 
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with 
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the

[[Page 83937]]

specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is 
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports 
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission 
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, 
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access 
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For 
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as 
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is 
encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fdb2adadbd9b988f9ed39a928b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e0afb0b0a086859283ce878f96">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 24, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-26385 Filed 11-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 31.2**

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer**

I,Mark E. Ashdown, Chief Financial Officer of DynTek Inc. certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 ofDynTek, Inc.;

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

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: February 20,  2007 | By:    | /s/ Mark E.  Ashdown     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |   | Mark E. Ashdown          |
|                     |   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

 

1

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00606-CV

KING RANCH, INC.,

Appellant

v.

Roel GARZA, Cynthia Garza, JS Trophy Ranch, LLC and Los Cuentos, LLC,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-12-51717-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE ANGELINI, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the portion of the trial court’s judgment 

awarding trespass damages is AFFIRMED. The remainder of the trial court’s judgment is 

REVERSED and judgment is RENDERED that the boundary line between the parties’ properties 

is a straight line, King Ranch, Inc. owns the land south of the boundary line, and the appellees take 

nothing on their requests for an injunction and attorneys’ fees. It is ORDERED that appellant, 

King Ranch, Inc., recover its costs of this appeal from the appellees, Roel Garza, Cynthia Garza, 

JS Trophy Ranch, LLC and Los Cuentos, LLC.

SIGNED October 8, 2014.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection
with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Equus Total Return, Inc. (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2023 (the “Report”), I, John A Hardy, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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







Dated: May 10, 2023





|EQUUS TOTAL RETURN, INC.
|------------------------
|                        
|/s/ John A. Hardy       
|John A. Hardy           
|Chief Executive Officer
#### State v. Carr

18307

9/05/95

Affirmed
#### Calleon v. Miyagi.

16261

7/15/94

Granted

876 P.2d 1278
20762

#### State v. Balcher

Affirmed
v.' • •.".'•• '''••'•'•-;:•:''''. ;'-v-:;: 'vv''•fiB.ceiVEb-iN-'-/- f •• • •' ••'.,.• . • :• Thf- urt of Apbeals: ••' «.• . • • '.•.. '!•' . ' ';, • •. ' ..SixthDistrict'. 

### { %.-/{/-/$~l '.;' •'• ' . '•'• JAN 1^2015. ^ • ;! "'/P / ^ >? / Defcrp Aiitrey, Cleric. 

## \jk^Aan^±.fjc, 75&QALi,,':,it^.•:;;•';::'i.,. 4. 

## %1 ^JX2r(J\

.J-,..4— 

# jam21-2015 -\--^v.^~...wj3^5.~J-/:«iy ..: ^'.,..^.i. -
—-*-.+ --•
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-2840

___________________________ Reginald L. Dunahue lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Dexter Payne, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Wendy Kelley, Former Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Marshall Dale Reed, Chief Deputy, Arkansas Department of Correction; Jeremy C. Andrews, Warden, EARU, ADC; James Dycus, Deputy Warden,

EARU, ADC; David Knott, Major, EARU, ADC lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees Morieon Kelly, Captain, EARU, ADC lllllllllllllllllllll

Defendant Stephanie Palmer, Sergeant, East Arkansas Maximum Security Unit, ADC

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee Latosha Davis, Lieutenant, EARU, ADC; Kathy Baxter, Corporal/S.E.T. Team, East Arkansas Maximum Security Unit, ADC (originally named as K Baxter); Demarcus Lewis, Corporal/ S.E.T. Team, East Arkansas Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Terrence Akins, Corporal/ S.E.T. Team, East Arkansas Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Erma Bell, Kitchen Captain, EARU, ADC (originally named as Bell) lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant s Emmer Branch, Deputy Warden, ADC, East Arkansas Regional Unit

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - AppelleeWallace McNary, Captain, ADC, East Arkansas Regional Unit lllllllllllllllllllll

Defendant Georgette Broadway, Grievance Officer, ADC, East Arkansas Regional Unit

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee Justine Minor, Disciplinary Judge, ADC, East Arkansas Regional Unit

lllllllllllllllllllll

Defendant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

____________ Submitted: March 5, 2024 Filed: March 14, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before COLLOTON, 1 KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.

1 Judge Colloton became chief judge of the circuit on March 11, 2024. See 28 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). -2-Reginald Dunahue appeals the district court’s 2 orders dismissing some of his

claims and granting summary judgment for the defendants on the remaining claims, in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Townsend v. Murphy , 898 F.3d 780, 783 (8th Cir. 2018) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment); Moore v. Sims , 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (reviewing de novo 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal); Ash v. Anderson Merchandisers, LLC , 799 F.3d 957, 960 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing de novo dismissal for failure to state a claim). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The request for oral argument is denied as moot.

______________________________

2 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., then Chief Judge, now United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, in part adopting the findings and recommendations of the Honorable Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -3-
Download Page 

## G.17 - Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization for Dec 16, 2013

Series DescriptionOil and gas extraction (NAICS = 211); n.s.a. CAPUTL Unit: Percentage Multiplier: 1 Currency: NA Unique Identifier: G17/CAPUTL/CAPUTL.G211.A Time Period CAPUTL.G211.A

2000 94.5585 2001 94.3683 2002 92.8499 2003 92.064 2004 90.8176 2005 89.6538 2006 91.1667 2007 92.8933 2008 92.6725 2009 94.782 2010 94.7431 2011 95.4208 2012 97.7914