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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THIRTEEN AND
THIRTY-NINE WEEKS ENDED MARCH 27, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-27-1999
<CASH>                                         241,911
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  256,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,209)
<INVENTORY>                                    802,752
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,339,505
<PP&E>                                         418,939
<DEPRECIATION>                               (186,032)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,688,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,002,734
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           941
<OTHER-SE>                                     438,854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,688,881
<SALES>                                      4,859,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,859,864
<CGS>                                        4,207,240
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,207,240
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               610,413
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,559
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,524
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,753
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,771
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,771
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32.2





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 MISONIX, INC. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Zaremba,
      Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary of
      the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
      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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Dated:
      November 14, 2006


/s/ Richard
              ZarembaRichard
              Zaremba
              Senior
                Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
              Treasurer
                and Secretary





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to MISONIX, INC. and will be retained by
      MISONIX, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.
1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 2 ... S eeT e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 6 2 .1 0 2 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 6 ).



## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08- 075- CR DE R YLDA NI E L L E W AR E AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 396TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppel l ant D er yl D ani el l e W ar e appeal s hi s convi ct i on f orf ai l ur e t o r egi st er a sa s e xo ffe n d e r. 2W e a ffir m . A p p e l l a n t’ s c o u rt -ap p o i n te d a p p e l l a te c o u n se l h a s fi l e d a m o ti o n to w i t hdr aw as counsel and a br i efi n suppo rtof t hatm ot i on. I n t he br i ef , counsel3 ... 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S . C t. 1 3 9 6 (1 9 6 7 ). 4 ... S e eS taffo rd v. S tate , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d 5 0 3 , 5 1 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 1 ); Mays v. State, 904 S . W .2 d 9 20, 922– 23 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 1995, no p e t.). 5 ... See Pens on v. Ohi o, 488 U. S. 75, 82–8 3, 109 S. Ct . 346, 351 (1 9 8 8 ).

6 ... S ee Bledsoe v. State, 178 S . W . 3d 824, 8 2 7

– 2 8 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 5 ); Meza v. State, 2 0 6 S .W .3 d 6 8 4 , 6 8 5 n .6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). 2 aver s t hat , i n hi s pr of essi onal opi ni on, t hi s appeal i s f r i vol ous. C oun sel ’ s br i ef a n d m o t io n m e e t t h e req u i rem e n ts o f A n der sv. Ca lif

o r nia 3by pr es ent i ng a p r o f e s s io n a l e v a lu a t io n o ft h e re c o r d d e m o n s t r a t in g w h yt h e r e a r e n o a r g u a b le gr oundsf orr el i ef . W e g aveap pel l antt he opport uni t y t o f i l e a pr o se br i ef , an d h e h a s fi l e d o n e . I n ad d i ti o n , th e S tate h a s fi l e d a l e tter bri e f. O nce an appel l ant ’ s court - appo i nt ed at t or ney f i l es a m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw on t he gr ound t hatt h e a ppe ali s f r i vol ousan d f ul f i l l s t he r equ i r em ent s of A n ders , t hi s cou rt i s obl i gat ed t o und ert ak e a n i nde pen den tex am i nat i on oft he r ec or d. 4O nl y t hen m ay w e gr antcounsel ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw . 5 W e have car ef ul l y r evi ew ed t he r ecor d, counsel ’ s br i ef , appel l ant ’ s pr o se b r ie fa n d s u p p le m e n t , a n d t h e S t a t e ’s b r ie f . W e a g r e e w it h c o u n s e l t h a tt h is appeal i s w hol l y f r i vol ous and w i t hou tm er i t ; w e f i nd no t hi ng i n t he r ecor d t hat m i g h ta r g u a b lys u p p o rtt h e a p p e a l. 6A c c o r d i n g l y , we g r a n tc o u n s e l ’ smo t i on to w i th d ra w a n d a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’sj u d g m e n t.3 P E R CU R I AM

PA N EL: CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d M C C O Y, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r9, 2008
FOR INFORMATION AND ACTION

DA-2021-03

March 19, 2021 

SUBJECT: APHIS Adds Pale Cyst Nematode (Globodera pallida) Associated Fields and 

Removes Other Fields from Regulation in Idaho

TO: State and Territory Agricultural Regulatory Officials

On January 28, 2021, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) added 444 acres to 

the pale cyst nematode (PCN)-regulated area in Bingham County, Idaho, and released from

regulation approximately 240 acres of associated fields in Bonneville County, Idaho. APHIS 

added the Bingham County fields because of the association of these fields with a PCN-infested 

field that was previously reported (DA-2020-01). APHIS has applied safeguarding measures on 

the interstate movement of PCN-regulated articles from these fields. APHIS released 

approximately 240 acres of associated fields in Bonneville County, Idaho, because the fields have

completed a release protocol comprised of a sequence of surveys with negative laboratory results 

for PCN, in accordance with 7 CFR §301.86, subpart 3(d)(2). 

With these changes, the current regulated area is 7,354 acres, of which 3,446 acres are infested 

fields. The infested fields are in an 8.5-mile radius that spans a portion of northern Bingham 

County and southern Bonneville County.

APHIS will follow-up with a notice of this change to the regulated area in the Federal Register. 

The specific PCN-regulated areas are on the following website: 

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pestsand-diseases/nematode/pcn

For additional information about the pale cyst nematode program, please contact the National 

Policy Manager, Lynn Evans-Goldner, at 301-851-2286.

/s/

Dr. Osama El-Lissy

Deputy Administrator 

Plant Protection and Quarantine
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130960 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130960 

 COA: 268120 

Wayne CC: 04-018632-01

RICKY DARNELL SCOTT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 28, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the balance sheet of CNL Income Fund XI, Ltd. at March 31, 1997, and
its statement of income for the three months then ended and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to the Form 10-Q of CNL Income Fund XI, Ltd.
for the three months ended March 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,292,639
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,224
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,529
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      26,016,146
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,111,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              35,921,359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,406,176
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                35,921,359
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               927,609
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  189,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                768,005
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            768,005
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   768,005
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund XI, Ltd. has
an unclassified balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown above
for current assets and current liabilities.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                      EXHIBIT 21

                             SUBSIDIARIES OF COMPUSA INC.


1.   CompUSA Stores L.P., a Texas limited partnership.

2.   CompUSA GP Holdings Company, a Delaware business trust.

3.   CompUSA Holdings Company, a Delaware business trust.

4.   CompUSA PC Inc., a Delaware corporation.

5.   CompUSA PC Operating Company, a Delaware business trust.

6.   CompUSA Net.com Inc., a Delaware corporation.

7.   cozone.com inc., a Delaware corporation

8.   cozone.com l.l.c., a Delaware limited liability company

9.   CompTeam Inc., a Delaware corporation.

10.  CompUSA Management Company, a Delaware business trust.

11.  CompUSA Holdings I Inc., a Delaware corporation.

12.  CompUSA Holdings II Inc., a Delaware corporation.
#### Howard Wayne KIELER, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Alice Lavonne KIELER, Appellee (Defendant below).

No. 4522.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Dec. 19, 1975.

Ernest W. Halle and Terry W. Mackey, Urbigkit, Moriarity, Halle & Mackey, P.C., Cheyenne, for appellant.

Bernard E. Cole, Cheyenne, for appellee.

Before GUTHRIE, C. J., Mc-CLINTOCK, THOMAS and ROSE, JJ„ and ARMSTRONG, D. J., Retired.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal complains about the trial court’s division of property in a contested divorce action. The statute, § 20-63, W.S. 1957, authorizes the trial court to make such disposition of the property of the parties as shall appear just and equitable. This court has considered that enactment many times. *Lovejoy v. Lovejoy,*36 Wyo. 379, 256 P. 76 (1927), reh. den., 38 Wyo. 358, 267 P. 91 (1928); *Crawford v. Crawford,*63 Wyo. 1, 176 P.2d 792 (1947); *Garman v. Garman,*59 Wyo. 1, 136 P.2d 517 (1943); *Boschetto v. Boschetto,*80 Wyo. 374, 343 P.2d 503 (1959); *Warren v. Warren,*361 P.2d 525 (Wyo.1961); *Biggerstaff v. Biggerstaff,*443 P.2d 524 (Wyo.1968).

The statute does not require an equal division of property. *Piper v. Piper,*487 P.2d 1062 (Wyo.1971). In fact, in the exercise of a court’s discretion, just and equitable divisions are likely to be unequal. *Barbour v. Barbour,*518 P.2d 12 (Wyo.1974).

The record contains no evidence of an abuse of discretion or capriciousness on the part of the trial court.

Application for an attorney’s fee for appellee having been filed, it is allowed in the sum of $300.00.

No error appearing, the case is affirmed.

GUTHRIE, Chief Justice

(concurring).

I concur but would additionally find there was no reasonable cause for this appeal under Rule 72 (k), W.R.C.P.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23.2


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUTANTS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of OEC Compression Corporation, (formerly Equity Compression
Services Corporation, formerly Hawkins Energy Corporation, the "Company") on
Form S-8 (File Nos. 33-74640 and 333-23925) of our report dated March 30,
1998 on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of the Company
for the year ended December 31, 1997, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.



                                       PricewaterhouseCooper LLP


Dallas, Texas
April 13, 2000







                                       44
19

Publication Date: 4/16/2018 Page 1

NCAH PORTAL CVB QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE

Versioning Electronic Outlines

Where were changes made in the 4/16/2018 version?

1. Page 2, an exception was added regarding baseline outlines returned unprocessed.

Where were changes made in the 10/17/2017 version?

1. Page 2, a section was added: "If a brand-new Outline, with no baseline, is returned unprocessed:"
19

Publication Date: 4/16/2018 Page 2

The following table describes the versioning system for electronic Outlines of Production (OP). It also applies to 

electronic Special Outlines.

After establishing an electronic baseline, the same document is transferred repeatedly between the firm and the

CVB, as needed to make updates. Each submission from the firm is numeric, increasing by 1 with each new 

submission.

NCAH PORTAL CVB QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE

Versioning Electronic Outlines

•

• When the CVB processes the submission, a suffix is added to the version number.

o “-CVB” is added for filed/signed documents and a CVB digital signature is added

o “-UP” is added to documents returned unprocessed. No digital signature is applied.

Description Version ID 

1

st OP submitted electronically if there are previously filed paper versions (has

no changes from last filed paper OP) Baseline 

Baseline OP signed by CVB and returned to firm Baseline-CVB

Next revision submitted by firm (or 1

st submission if the OP was never

previously submitted on paper) 1 

Version 1 filed by CVB and returned to firm 1-CVB

Revision of version 1-CVB, submitted by firm 2 

Version 2 filed by CVB and returned to firm 2-CVB

Revision of version 2-CVB, submitted by the firm 3 

Version 3 considered by the CVB to be unsuitable for filing, returned 

unprocessed 3-UP

Revision of version 2-CVB (attempt #2), submitted by the firm 4 

Version 4 filed by CVB and returned to firm 4-CVB

And so forth.... 

When submitting again after an unprocessed Outline is returned, the latest version would supersede the last 

filed/signed document. In the example above, the next revision (version 4) would supersede version 2-CVB, 

not 3-UP. 

EXCEPTION: If a baseline submission is returned unprocessed, the next submission is also considered 

a baseline and still supersedes the paper copy, until a satisfactory baseline (Baseline-CVB) is filed. This 

is also due to the unique nature of a baseline and the need to keep them distinct. After a Baseline-CVB 

is filed, the version numbers become numeric and follow the above sequence.

Description Version ID 

1st OP for a brand-new product (no prior version, no baseline) 1

Version 1 unsuitable for filing and returned unprocessed 1-UP

Next submission 2*

*For Version 2 when the first version was returned unprocessed: Enter “NA” in Supersedes Date and

Supersedes Version fields. Indicate that version 2 is a New outline (not a complete revision).

If a brand-new Outline, with no baseline, is returned unprocessed:
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
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Landing of Columbus
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Constantino Brumidi

Location
      
Capitol Rotunda

Christopher Columbus disembarks from the Santa Maria on a plank, greeted by Native Americans. This is the first of four scenes of Spanish conquest. Brumidi's central figure seems to have been inspired by a statue of Columbus by Luigi Persico, which was then at the east central steps of the Capitol. (1492)

About the Frieze of American History

The frieze in the Rotunda of the United States Capitol contains a painted panorama depicting significant events in American history. Thomas U. Walter's 1859 cross-section drawing of the new dome (constructed 1855-1863) shows a recessed belt atop the Rotunda walls with relief sculpture.

Eventually it was painted in true fresco, a difficult and exacting technique in which the pigments are applied directly onto wet plaster. As the plaster cures the colors become part of the wall. Consequently, each section of plaster must be painted the day it is laid. The frieze is painted in grisaille, a monochrome of whites and browns that resembles sculpture. It measures 8 feet 4 inches in height and approximately 300 feet in circumference. It starts 58 feet above the floor. 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
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

PD-1415-10

KEMUEL LINDSEY, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

NUECES COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of the third-degree felony of retaliation, and based upon an

enhancement paragraph, sentenced to twenty-five years in prison.

At trial, Nisar Ahmed testified that appellant came into his convenience store and

asked various customers for money. Ahmed eventually confronted appellant, and appellant

punched him in the face. Police arrived and arrested appellant for assault. In the patrol car,

appellant made several threats to “come back and hurt [Ahmed] for getting him arrested.”

Appellant said he was going to return to the store and “beat the f— out of this clerk again.”
KEMUEL LINDSEY – 2

When the arresting officer asked appellant to calm down, appellant said, “F— you. I’m

coming back to f— him up for putting me in jail.”

On appeal, appellant claimed the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

He argued that a conviction for retaliation cannot be supported unless the defendant

intended to cause the result. That is, does the defendant have to intend that the victim either

(1) hear or learn about his threats; or (2) be intimidated by his threats? The State recognized

the legitimacy of that issue and responded appropriately. The court of appeals made a

generalized review of the sufficiency of the evidence, but did not address appellant’s

specific argument. Lindsey v. State, No. 13-09-00181, 2010 WL 2966882 (Tex.

App.–Corpus Christi July 29, 2010)(not designated for publication). Appellant has filed a

petition for discretionary review in which he complains of the court of appeals’ decision

and reiterates his point that “at no time did [appellant] threaten Ahmed to his person or

communicate a threat directly at Ahmed, nor was there any evidence that a threat to Ahmed

was likely to be communicated.”

The court of appeals is required to address “every issue raised and necessary to final

disposition of the appeal.” Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. We grant appellant’s petition for

discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the court of appeals, and remand this case to

that court to address appellant’s argument.

DELIVERED April 20, 2011

DO NOT PUBLISH
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.01 - CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File No's. 333-96647, 333-100060, and 333-102657) and
S-8 (File No's. 033-63701, 333-42727, 333-94075, 333-41116, 333-62876,
333-69518, and 333-109435) of Interland, Inc. of our report dated November 10,
2004 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
November 15, 2004