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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                          DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                 28,322,234
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          12,225,387
<ALLOWANCES>                                            1,323,219
<INVENTORY>                                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       47,451,216
<PP&E>                                                 15,961,679
<DEPRECIATION>                                         11,840,389
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         59,306,895
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  23,306,255
<BONDS>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                  117,826
<OTHER-SE>                                             27,849,252
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           59,306,895
<SALES>                                                24,274,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       51,657,840
<CGS>                                                   1,770,824
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           5,473,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       37,932,666
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          603,015
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         41,668
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        10,042,417
<INCOME-TAX>                                            3,782,267
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     6,260,150
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                            6,260,150
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                0.54<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0.51
<FN>
<F1>This amount is reported as EPS BASIC.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 500 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 500

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the State of 
  Israel has the right to defend itself against Iranian hostility and 
  that the House of Representatives pledges to support Israel in its 
                  efforts to maintain its sovereignty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 28, 2015

  Mr. King of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Rigell, Mr. 
Lamborn, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Barletta, Mr. McClintock, 
     Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. 
DesJarlais, Mr. Russell, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Allen, 
Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Bishop of Michigan, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. 
Palmer, Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Bishop of Utah, 
 Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Fleischmann, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, 
Mr. Zinke, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Roe 
of Tennessee, Mr. Stutzman, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Walker, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. 
Rouzer, Mr. Stivers, Mr. Young of Iowa, and Mr. Burgess) submitted the 
 following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the State of 
  Israel has the right to defend itself against Iranian hostility and 
  that the House of Representatives pledges to support Israel in its 
                  efforts to maintain its sovereignty.

Whereas the State of Israel has been a loyal friend and ally of the United 
        States since its establishment in 1948;
Whereas, on September 9, 2015, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that Israel ``. 
        . . will not see [the] next 25 years . . . Until then, struggling, 
        heroic and jihadi morale will leave no moment of serenity for 
        Zionists''; and
Whereas the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a project of the Obama 
        Administration, was finalized on July 14, 2015, by the E3/EU+3 (China, 
        France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the 
        United States, with the High Representative of the European Union for 
        Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and the Islamic Republic of Iran, 
        and substantially diminishes the security of Israel: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
        the State of Israel has the right to defend itself against 
        Iranian hostility; and
            (2) the House of Representatives pledges to support the 
        State of Israel in its efforts to maintain its sovereignty.
                                 <all>
```
In spection Date Aircraft Repairs needed Repaired? (Y/N)
#### Notartomaso v. Notartomaso

19635

4/11/97

Affirmed
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86579-86580]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26784]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1186; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-22]
RIN 2120-AA66


Amendment of Class E Airspace; Cedartown, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: A final rule was published in the Federal Register on July 24, 
2023, amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above 
the surface for Polk County Airport/Cornelius Moore Field, Cedartown, 
Georgia. This action corrects the title of the amendment to associate 
the airspace with Georgia.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 21, 2024. The Director of the Federal

[[Page 86580]]

Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR 
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and 
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Stuart, Operations Support 
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone: (404) 305-5926.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (88 FR 
47361, July 24, 2023; corrected September 26, 2023 (FR 88 65797)) for 
Doc. No. FAA-2023-1186, amending Class E airspace extending upward from 
700 feet above the surface for Polk County Airport/Cornelius Moore 
Field, Cedartown, Georgia, as a new instrument approach procedure has 
been designed for this airport. After publication, the FAA found the 
listed title associated with the airspace indicated Florida (FL) 
instead of Georgia (GA). This action corrects this error.

Correction to the Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the 
amendment of Class E airspace for Polk County Airport/Cornelius Moore 
Field, Cedartown, GA, in Docket No. FAA-2023-1186, as published in the 
Federal Register on July 24, 2023 (88 FR 47361; corrected September 26, 
2023 (FR 88 65797)), is corrected in the Federal Register of July 24, 
2023 (88 FR 47361) as follows:


Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0
On page 47362, in the first column, the title of ``ASO FL E5 Cedartown, 
GA [Amended]'' is corrected to read:
* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Cedartown, GA [Amended]

* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on December 1, 2023.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2023-26784 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
21556

#### State v. Smith

Affirmed
17678

#### State v. Smith

Affirmed
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1877

CLAUDIA SAILOR, a/k/a Claudia Sailor Nimocks,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

FRANK CLEARY,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-755-BR)

Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 20, 1999

Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Claudia Sailor, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant

United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Claudia Sailor filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss

for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of

appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are

“mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). When the United States is a

party, the unsuccessful litigant is accorded sixty days within

which to file in the district court a notice of appeal from the

judgment or final order. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the

time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on March 31, 1998;

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on June 2, 1998, which is

beyond the sixty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We deny Appellant’s motions for appointment of counsel and to delay responding

to financial affidavit. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
4

rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 23-1727

JOYCE TOTH,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

EVERLY WELL, INC. and EVERLY HEALTH, INC.,

Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court, issued on September 25, 2024, is 

amended as follows:

On page 17, line 10 replace "Cullinane" with "Cullinane".
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services

Last Modified: 

Print

Biotechnology Regulatory Services helps American agriculture stay at the forefront

of science and innovation. From row crops that better tolerate environmental

stresses to vegetable and oil crops that produce healthier foods, people develop new

products every day using genetic engineering. We work alongside other Federal

agencies to make sure these products are safe for U.S. agriculture and the

environment.
About Us

Priorities

Biotechnology Permits 

We regulate the importation, interstate movement, or environmental release of

certain organisms developed using genetic engineering that may pose a plant pest

risk. Learn more about permitting requirements and our regulatory process.

Visit Biotechnology Permits

Regulatory Status Reviews 

Developers have the option of requesting a permit, a regulatory status review, or

both of a plant developed using genetic engineering that has not been previously

evaluated and determined to be nonregulated.

Visit Regulatory Status Reviews
Exemptions and Confirmations 

Learn how developers can request a confirmation from APHIS that a modified plant

qualifies for an exemption and is not subject to the regulations in 7 CFR part 340.

Visit Exemptions and Confirmations

Compliance and Inspections 
We have a comprehensive system to help ensure that biotechnology organizations

are maintaining compliance with APHIS’ biotechnology regulations.

Visit Compliance and Inspections

Trending Topics

Commenting Opportunities: Biotechnology 

We value your participation in our regulatory decision-making processes. View

notices open for public comment.

Biotechnology Regulations 

We implement APHIS’ biotechnology regulations 7 CFR part 340 under the authority

of the Plant Protection Act. Learn more about our regulations.

Guidance and Resources 

Find guidance and resources that will help you navigate APHIS’ regulatory process.

Biotechnology Meetings 
We hold meetings to engage with our stakeholders on current activities and

regulatory decisions. Learn about our upcoming and past meetings.

BRS Permitting Assistant (APHIS eFile) 

Apply for your biotechnology permit online and get support.

Legacy Petitions 

Learn more about the legacy petition process.

Latest Updates

3/20/24

APHIS Issues Regulatory Status Review Responses

3/11/24

APHIS BRS Adds Flexibility to Importation Permits in APHIS eFile

2/21/24

APHIS Issues Regulatory Status Review Responses

12/20/23

APHIS Issues Regulatory Status Review Responses

11/21/23

Nov. 15, 2023, BRS Annual Meeting Presentation Available

View All Updates
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-20868 

 

JOHNNY PAUL PENRY,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

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

August 14, 2001

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

In 1980, Johnny Paul Penry was convicted in Texas state

court of the capital murder of Pamela Carpenter. He was

sentenced to death. The United States Supreme Court vacated

Penry’s sentence because the jury had not been adequately

instructed with respect to mitigating evidence. Penry v.

Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989). The State of Texas retried Penry

in 1990 and Penry was again convicted of capital murder and

sentenced to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed

Penry’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal and denied
No. 99-20868

-2-

Penry’s state application for a writ of habeas corpus. Penry

then filed a federal application for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court denied federal

habeas relief and denied Penry’s motion for a certificate of

appealablity (COA) to challenge its decision. Penry filed a

motion for a COA in this court, which we denied. Penry v.

Johnson, 215 F.3d 504, 512 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Thereafter, Penry petitioned for, and the United States

Supreme Court granted, a writ of certiorari. Penry v. Johnson,

121 S. Ct. 563 (2000). The Supreme Court affirmed our order

denying Penry’s motion for a COA except with respect to Penry’s

claim that he was sentenced to death in violation of the Eighth

and Fourteenth Amendments because the jury instructions given in

his case prevented jurors from considering and giving effect to

substantial mitigating evidence that Penry was mentally retarded

and was severely abused as a child. Penry v. Johnson, 121 S. Ct.

1910, 1924 (2001). The Court reversed our denial of a COA as to

that issue and remanded the case to this court for further

proceedings. Id. The Court held that the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals unreasonably applied clearly established federal

law in concluding that the jury instructions given in Penry’s

case satisfied the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at

1918, 1924. 

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, we GRANT Penry’s

motion for a COA with respect to his jury instruction claim,

VACATE the district court’s judgment denying Penry’s application

for a federal writ of habeas corpus, and REMAND the case to the
No. 99-20868

-3-

district court. The district court is instructed to grant

Penry’s application for a writ of habeas corpus unless the State

of Texas within a reasonable time either grants Penry a new trial

on the issue of punishment only, as permitted by Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. art. 44.29(c), or vacates Penry’s sentence and imposes a

sentence less than death. See Moore v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 586,

622 (5th Cir. 1999). 

COA GRANTED; VACATED and REMANDED.
April 28, 1997

19536

#### State v. Patao

Vacated
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 MISONIX, INC. (the "Company") on
FORM  10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"), I, Michael A.
McManus,  Jr.,  Chief  Executive Officer 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.

/s/ Michael A. McManus, Jr.
---------------------------
Michael A. McManus, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 6, 2003






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.


<PAGE>
#### State v. Rasavong

17607

11/26/96

Affirmed
February 11, 2004

22874

#### Kotz v. Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc.

Affirmed
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MARCH 30, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-15344

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00122-CR-J-25-TEM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

VICENTE MALDONADO-ASENCIO, 

a.k.a. Felix Antonio Poso, 

a.k.a. Edwin Maldonado-Poso, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(March 30, 2006)

Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

Vincente Maldonado-Asencio appeals the 70-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea to unlawfully entering the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1327.

Under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i), a defendant’s offense level is enhanced 16

levels if he was previously deported after conviction for a felony drug trafficking

offense for which a sentence of more than 13 months was imposed. 

The § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i)enhancement was applied in this case. MaldonadoAsencio contends that it should not have been because, in his view, a prior

aggravated felony conviction is an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. §

1362(B)(2). For that reason, he says, the sentence imposed unconstitutionally

exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense based on the facts admitted by him

or charged in the indictment.

Maldonado-Asencio’s position is precluded by Almendarez-Torres v. United

States, 523 U.S. 224, 247, 118 S. Ct. 1219, 1233, 140 L.E.2d 350 (1999), and our

many decisions attesting to that decision’s continuing validity and applying it. See

United States v. Greer, 2006 WL 435662, *5-6, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (11th Cir. Feb.

24, 2006) (“As we have said several times, unless and until the Supreme Court

specifically overrules Almendarez-Torres, we will continue to follow it.”); United

States v. Camacho-Ibarquen, 410 F.3d 1307, 1316 n. 3 (11th Cir.2005) (“[T]he

Supreme Court has not explicitly overruled Almendarez-Torres. As a result, we
3

must follow Almendarez-Torres.”); United States v. Burge, 407 F.3d 1183, 1188

(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 551 (2005); United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d

1325, 1329 (11th Cir.2005); United States v. Orduno-Mireles, 405 F.3d 960, 962

(11th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 223 (2005); United States v. Marseille, 377

F.3d 1249, 1257-58 (11th Cir.2004); United States v. Guadamuz-Solis, 232 F.3d

1363 (11th Cir.2000) (“Almendarez-Torres remains the law until the Supreme

Court determines that Almendarez-Torres is not controlling precedent.”); United

States v. Miles, 290 F.3d 1341, 1348 (11th Cir.2002). The facts of this case are not

materially distinguishable from the facts of those cases. A prior conviction is not

an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), regardless of whether the

defendant admits to it.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 10(s)

                    ANNUAL TOP MANAGEMENT CASH BONUS PROGRAM

         The Corporation maintains a cash bonus plan whereby the executive
officers are eligible to receive cash bonuses equal to a percentage of the
executive officer's base salary if certain corporate pretax profit objectives
are achieved. The executive officers selected each year to participate in the
cash bonus plan, as well as the performance targets on which the cash bonuses
are based and the amount of the cash bonuses are determined each year at the
discretion of the Chairman and the Board of Directors.

         Specifically, the Chairman recommends to the Board of Directors certain
executive officers who will participate in the plan each year. Such executive
officers who will participate in the plan as evidenced by written notice from
the Corporation. The amount of the actual cash bonus paid to the various
executive officers participating in the cash bonus plan is calculated based on
the attainment of the corporate pretax profit objectives set-at the commencement
of each fiscal year.

         The cash bonuses are normally paid within the sixty (60) days after the
end of the fiscal year.