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

<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>                                           1,285
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,419
<ALLOWANCES>                                       724
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,921
<PP&E>                                           8,131
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,584
<BONDS>                                          9,283
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,597
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                    (23,743)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,272
<SALES>                                         51,913
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,913
<CGS>                                           23,753
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   49,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (297)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (148)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (149)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)


</TABLE>
June 14, 2005

26593

#### State v. Paglinawan

Affirmed
April 27, 2006

26872, 26873

#### Doe Children, In re

Affirmed
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEAN CRUMP,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 55950

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 04760

- RGK

- PLA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2019 **

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jean Crump appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim

. Barren v. Harrington , 152

* 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

MAR 19 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 55950

F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)

. We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Crump’s action because Crump failed

to allege facts sufficie nt to state a plausible claim. S ee Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d

338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally,

plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for

relief); see also FDIC v. Meyer , 510 U.S. 471, 476

- 78, 484

- 86 (1994) (the United

States has not waived its sovereign immunity for constitutional torts; a Bivens

cause of action may not be brought against a government agency); West v. Atkins

,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (elements of a § 1983 claim); Garmon v. County of Los

Angeles , 828 F.3d 837, 842

- 43 (9th Cir. 2016) (application of absolute

prosecutorial immunity); Duvall v. County of Kitsap , 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir.

2001) (application of judicial immunity).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION
  PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (SUBSECTIONS
(a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
 TITLE
18, UNITED STATES CODE)
 
 
 Pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officers of Firstgold, Corp.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), do hereby certify with respect to the
Quarterly Report of Firstgold on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-Q Report")
that:
 
 (1)           the
10-Q 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 the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Firstgold.
 
  FIRSTGOLD
CORP.Dated:  September
      19, 2008
                
                /s/ STEPHEN
      AKERFELDTStephen
      Akerfeldt, Chief Executive OfficerDated:  September
      19, 2008
                
                /s/
      JAMES KLUBERJames
      Kluber, Chief Financial Officer
## Summary Statement

In summary, Martin Cox seeks an exemption from the FARs set forth above and in Appendix A to allow commercial operations of a small unmanned vehicle conducting aerial video/photographs of coal mine stockpiles and video/photographs of residential properties. Approval of the exemption allowing commercial operations of the DJI Inspire 1 for aerial video/photographs will enhance safety by reducing risk. Conventional aerial video/photography operations, using conventional aircraft, present risks associated with vehicles that weigh several thousand pounds, carry large quantities of fuel and passengers. Such aircraft must fly to and from the survey location. In contrast, a DJI Inspire 1, weighing less than 7 lbs and powered by batteries, eliminates a portion of that risk given the reduced mass and lack of combustible fuel carried on board. The Inspire 1 is carried to the survey location, not flown there. The Inspire 1 will carry no passengers or crew and, therefore, will not expose any individuals to the risks associated with manned aircraft flights. Additionally, no national security issue is raised by the grant of the requested exemptions. Given the size, load carrying capacity, speed at which it operates, and the fact that it carries no explosives or other dangerous materials, the Inspire 1 poses no threat to national security. The operation of the Inspire 1, weighing less than 7 lbs, for aerial video/photography in accordance with the strict conditions outlined above, will provide an equivalent level of safety supporting the grant of the exemptions requested herein, including exempting Martin Cox from the requirements of Part 21.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Cagle’s, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended April 3, 2010 (the “Report”), I, J. Douglas Cagle, Chairman,Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ J. Douglas Cagle                             |   |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|
| J. Douglas Cagle                                 |   |
| Chairman, Chief  Executive Officer and President |   |
| (Principal Executive  Officer)                   |   |
| Date: June 10,  2010                        |   |

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 18, 2017

No. 04-17-00441-CV

IN RE CITY OF ALICE

Original Mandamus Proceeding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus on July 11, 2017. Relator has now filed a 

motion to dismiss this proceeding, advising this court that the issues raised by the mandamus 

proceeding have become moot. Relator’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This original 

mandamus proceeding is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on July 18, 2017.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of July, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
# C_2016202EN.01006401.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/64

---

Article 42

(ex Article 36 TEC)

(ex Article 36 TEC)

The provisions of the Chapter relating to rules on competition shall apply to production of and trade in agricultural products only to the extent determined by the European Parliament and the Council within the framework of Article 43(2) and in accordance with the procedure laid down therein, account being taken of the objectives set out in Article 39.

The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise the granting of aid:

| (a) | for the protection of enterprises handicapped by structural or natural conditions; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

for the protection of enterprises handicapped by structural or natural conditions;

| (b) | within the framework of economic development programmes. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

within the framework of economic development programmes.

---
21805

#### Young v. Robarts

Affirmed
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                        
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997

<CASH>                                         146
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  259
<ALLOWANCES>                                   41
<INVENTORY>                                    310
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               739
<PP&E>                                         482
<DEPRECIATION>                                 334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          648
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,805
<COMMON>                                       37
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,011
<SALES>                                        436
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               436
<CGS>                                          320
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               625
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (505)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (505)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (71)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (575)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.16)
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES v. FITCH.

No. 4503.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Nov. 6, 1939.

Young M. Smith, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C. (Claud N. Sapp, U. S. Atty., of Columbia, S. C., Julius C. Martin, Director, Bureau of War Risk Litigation, of Washington, D. C., Wilbur C. Pickett, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and Keith L. Seegmiller, Atty., Department of Justice, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellant.

R. K. Wise, of Columbia, S. C., and Warren E. Miller, of Washington, D. C, for appellee.

Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a war risk insurance case and the only question presented is whether verdict should have been directed for the government. Premiums paid kept the policy in force until January 1, 1919 and the question is whether there was substantial evidence to support the finding that insured became totally and permanently disabled prior to that date.

There is evidence that insured had influenza while at camp in the Fall of 1918; that following this he had shortness of breath and pains in the chest and was under observation and on November 2, 1918, was found to be suffering from functional cardiac disorder, with a pulse rate of 100 and two minutes after exercise of 120, dyspnea, pericardial pain, dizziness and tremor of hands. He was discharged from the army as disabled on November 8th. Following his discharge he returned home and remained in bed under care of a physician for six weeks. In 1919 he attempted to work on a farm, but was unable to do the work, being attacked with shortness of breath and pains in the chest and having to go to bed whenever he tried to work. He married early in 1919; and his wife worked on the farm, she and the neighbors doing his farm work for him. In 1920 and 1921 he attempted to farm on shares but was unable to work, his wife doing what was done. In 1922 he moved to the home of his father-in-law where he lived until 1934, when he moved to Lake City, S. C., so that his wife could get employment with the federal Works Progress Administration. In 1925 he was found to be suffering with myocarditis and has suffered with same ever since.

Without reviewing the evidence in detail, it is sufficient to say that it strongly tends to show that insured has been totally unable to work since his discharge from the army, that he has tried to work from time to time but has been unable to do anything on account of his physical condition and that his wife has had to make a living for him. A physician who has treated him since 1925 testified that he had been unable to work since that time, and that in his opinion if insured had come out of the army with functional cardiac disorder, shortness of breath and pain in the chest, he had not been able to work since his discharge. While there was some evidence in contradiction of the above, we think it was sufficient to take the case to the jury. Madray v. United States, 4 Cir., 55 F.2d 552; Garrison v. United States, 4 Cir., 62 F.2d 41; Hicks v. United States, 4 Cir., 65 F.2d 517.

Affirmed.
COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS — CITY OF NEW YORK — APPELLATE TERM — FIRST DEPARTMENT.

November 21, 1922.

#### THE PEOPLE v. MOU SANE.

Disorderly conduct — Breach op the peace — New York Consolidation Act — Excessive sentence.

A sentence of ninety days to the worMionse for using abusive language and raising a cane in a threatening manner is excessive.

Before Hon. Frederic Kernochan, Justice Presiding; Hon. Clarence Edwards, Hon. John J. Freschi, Associate Justices.

*John McKinley*Wight, attorney for appellant.

*Joab H.*Banton, *District Attorney (Felix C. Benvenga,*of counsel), attorney for respondent.

Per Curiam :

Defendant convicted of disorderly conduct tending to a breach of the peace in using abusive language and raising his cane in a threatening manner, and sentenced to the workhouse for a period of ninety days.

The evidence clearly establishes the complaint charging acts constituting disorderly conduct tending to a breach of the peace *188by the defendant within the provisions of the New York Consolidation Act.

In view of the nature of the offense shown, we think that the term of imprisonment imposed is excessive. The statement of the magistrate that the defendant had a “ very bad record ” is not borne out by the return on appeal. In fact, a certified copy of the complaint, which is made part of the return, has endorsed thereon “ No Previous Record.”

The defendant having actually been incarcerated in the workhouse since his conviction on November 1, 1922, we order that the judgment of conviction shall be modified to the time of imprisonment already served, and that, as modified, the judgment be affirmed.
3 1 8

5 . 9

1 2 . 1 2 9 . 9 1 2 . 1 5 . 9
5 . 9 1 2 .

1

5 . 9 5 . 9 3 3

1 2 .

1 1 2 . 1 5 . 9

1 2 . 1

5 . 9 3

3 5 . 9 3

1 8

2 9 . 9 1 2 . 1 1 2 . 1 1 2 . 1 1 8

5 . 9 1 2 . 1

1 8

3 2 9 . 9

3 5 . 9

1 2 . 1 5

. 9

1 2 . 1

1 2 . 1 5

. 9

2 9 . 9 2 9 . 9 1 2 . 1

1 2 . 1 2 9 .

9

1 2 . 1 1 2 . 1 1 8 5 . 9

3 5 . 9 1 8 1 2 . 1

5 . 9
1 8
1 2 . 1 3 3

3 1 2 . 1 5 . 9 3

5 . 9 3 1 2 . 1

3 5 . 9

1 2 . 1 1 8

1 8 5 . 9 5 .

9

5 . 9 5 . 9

1 8 5 . 9

1 2 . 1 5 . 9

1 2 . 1 3

1 2 . 1 1 2 . 1G:\PROJECTS\FPL\Port_Everglades\113_87618_PortEvergladesEnergyCenterSCA\G_BiologicalAssessment\Figures\113-87618G002SEAGRASS.mxd



## R E F E R E N C E S 1
. S e a g r a s s , F l o r i d a F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e C o n s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n , 2 0 1 0 2
. B a t h y m e t r y , N O A A C o a s t a l S e r v i c e s C e n t e r , 2 0 1 0 3
. A p p r o x i m a t e D i s c h a r g e , G o l d e r A s s o c i a t e s I n c . , 2 0 1 2 B i n g I m a g e r y S u p p l i e d b y M i c r o s o f t ® V i r t u a l E a r t h B i n g M a p TM L i c e n s e U n d e r E S R I I n c . © 2 0 1 0 M i c r o s o f t C o r p o r a t i o n a n d i t s D a t a S u p p l i e r s . A c c e s s e d 1 0 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 2 C o o r d i n a t e S y s t e m : N A D 1 9 8 3 S t a t e P l a n e F l o r i d a E a s t F I P S 0 9 0 1 F e e t 

# 1 , 5 0 0 0 1 , 5 0 0 F e e t D i s c h a r g e ( A p p r o x i m a t e ) 

### D e p t h ( f t ) 3 5
. 9 1 2
. 1 1 8 2 9
. 9 

### S e a g r a s s D i s c o n t i n u o u s 

## L E G E N D



# F P L P O R T E V E R G L A D E S E N E R G Y C E N T E R



# F I G U R E : 1 E X I S T I N G S E A G R A S S E S P O R T E V E R G L A D E S B A S I N

P R O J E C T N O
. 1 1 3 - 8 7 6 1 8 2 3 O c t
. 2 0 1 2 K F K N R L 2 6 O c t
. 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 8 7 6 1 8

_ G 0 0 2 F I L E N o . G I S
R E V I E W D E S I G N C H E C K S C A L E : A S S H O W N R E V
. 0 T I T L E P R O J E C T R E V

. D A T E D E S R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N G I S C H K R V W
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension Partners 1991-A, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         1,290
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  25,410
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               26,700
<PP&E>                                         3,010,590
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,406,100)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 631,190
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          157,932
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     473,258
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   631,190
<SALES>                                        75,330
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               75,351
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  47,010<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                8,548
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            8,548
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   8,548
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 83898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26475]


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

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION REVIEW BOARD


Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB).

ACTION: Notice of appointment of members to the senior executive 
service performance review board.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the membership of the Chemical Safety 
and Hazard Investigation Review Board (CSB) Senior Executive Service 
(SES) Performance Review Board (PRB).

DATES: These appointments are effective on the date of publication of 
this notice to March 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Selena Simmons-Ferguson, HR Director, 
CSB, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 910, (202) 510-3054.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) requires each agency to 
establish, in accordance with regulations with regulations prescribed 
by the Office of Personnel Management, a performance review board 
(PRB). The PRB reviews the initial performance ratings of members of 
the Senior Executive Service (SES) and makes recommendations for final 
annual performance ratings for senior executives. In addition, the PRB 
will review and recommend executive performance bonuses and pay 
increases.
    Publication of the PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 
4314(c)(4). Because the CSB is a small independent Federal agency, in 
addition to a member from the CSB, the agency is drawing additional 
career appointed SES members for its PRB from other Federal agencies. 
One member of the previously announced PRB is no longer able to serve. 
Jerold Gidner will be stepping down and Jason Bruno will take his 
place.
    The PRB shall consist of at least three members, and more than half 
of the members shall consist of career appointees when reviewing the 
performance of a career appointed SES. The following persons comprise 
the CSB Senior Executive Service PRB:

    Dr. Sylvia Johnson, Board Member, U.S. Chemical Safety and 
Hazard Investigation Board;
    Rachel A. Wallace, Deputy General Counsel and Chief Operating 
Officer, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office 
of the President; and
    Jason Bruno, Director of the Office of Strategic Oversight and 
Planning, Bureau of Trust Funds Administration, U.S. Department of 
Interior.

    Dated: November 28, 2023.
Tamara Qureshi,
Assistant General Counsel, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation 
Board.
[FR Doc. 2023-26475 Filed 11-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6350-01-P