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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      55,739,280
<SECURITIES>                                17,358,952
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,847,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                   286,982
<INVENTORY>                                  8,302,441
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            91,879,346
<PP&E>                                       5,344,897
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,559,665
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              97,552,060
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,974,742
<BONDS>                                         53,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,130
<OTHER-SE>                                  91,515,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                97,552,060
<SALES>                                     10,168,945
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,168,945
<CGS>                                        4,450,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,215,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (841,290)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,794,349
<INCOME-TAX>                                   503,724
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,290,625
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,290,625
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Aracely Gomez

,

Appellant

,

v.

Wingfoot Enterpr ises, Inc. d/b/a

Allegiance Staffing and David Avalos

,

Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 236

- C V

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 6

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 201 3

- DCV3850 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s unopposed second motion for extension of time

to file modified order. The motion is GRANTED. Therefore, the modified order shall be filed

with the trial court no later than February 11, 2019, and a supplemental clerk’s record containing

the modified order shall be filed in this Court no later than ten days after the modified order is

filed with the trial court clerk.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13 th d ay of November , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C

. J

. , Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL
REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001011449
<NAME> SUBURBAN LODGES OF AMERICA, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,062,123
<SECURITIES>                                71,587,925
<RECEIVABLES>                                  244,171
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,849
<INVENTORY>                                    858,438
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            78,154,160
<PP&E>                                     166,528,098
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,382,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             242,854,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,616,755
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       154,292
<OTHER-SE>                                 208,897,933
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               242,854,049
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,319,129
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,087,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             179,319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,052,297
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,328,495
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,723,802
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,723,802
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       00


</TABLE>
#### Charles CAMPBELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James BLODGETT, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary, Walla Walla, Washington; Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General, State of Washington, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 89-35210.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

July 23, 1993.

Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, BROWNING, TANG, POOLE, D.W. NELSON, REINHARDT, BEEZER, WIGGINS, THOMPSON, O’SCANNLAIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

In an unpublished order dated April 28, 1993, the en banc court remanded this case to the district court for thirty-five days. This was a limited remand solely for the purpose of taking evidence on whether death by hanging is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. The order specifically stated that the en bane court retained jurisdiction. The district court, after hearing, returned its findings and conclusions dated June 1, 1993.

Campbell has attempted to appeal from these findings and conclusions of the district court. This is in error. There is no final order from which to appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253.

It is ordered that the document dated June 4, 1993 delivered to the Clerk on June 14, 1993, captioned “Notice of Appeal,” be marked 'as “received” by this court, but it shall not be filed or considered as a separate docketed appeal.
Exhibit 32
 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 FBL Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James E. Hohmann, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, James P. Brannen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 (1
                  )
                  
                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and(2
                  )
                  
                  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: February 18, 2010
 By
                  /s/ James E. HohmannJames E. HohmannChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
 By
                  /s/ James P. BrannenJames P. BrannenChief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to FBL Financial Group, Inc., and will be retained by FBL Financial Group, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|   | (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 results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |   |                                    |
|------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|                         |   |                                    |   |
| Date: November 14,      2008 | By:    | /s/ Terry Gabby               |   |
|                         |   | Name Terry      Gabby              |   |
|                         |   | Title Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|                         |   |                                    |   |

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 5971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01865]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: Publishing in the 
FR of 1/29/24.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Wednesday, January 
31, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Open Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 
January 31, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., has been changed to Wednesday, January 
31, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: January 25, 2024.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-01865 Filed 1-26-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
```
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 Smith Barney Tidewater Futures Fund L.P. (the ‘‘Partnership’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Jennifer Magro, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Partnership.

/s/ Jennifer Magro                                Jennifer MagroCitigroup Managed Futures LLC Chief Financial Officer and Director     Date:    August 14, 2007

----
NEI32855 Formaldehyde REL 35 30

Examined results for maximum off-site impact 

(Figure 2)

NEI32855 Formaldehyde AEGL1 2 2

Examined results for maximum off-site impact 

(Extrapolated from Figure 2)

NEI32855 Formaldehyde EPRG1 2 1

Examined results for maximum off-site impact 

(Extrapolated from Figure 2)

NEI12037 Formaldehyde REL 20 11

Examined results for maximum off-site impact 

(Figure 3)

NEI25015 Formaldehyde REL 15 12

Examined results for maximum off-site impact 

(Figure 3)

NEI11393 Formaldehyde REL 6 6

Examined results for maximum off-site impact 

(Figure 4)

NEIGA1210021 Formaldehyde REL 4 3

Examined results for maximum off-site impact 

(Figure 5)

NEI11202 Formaldehyde REL 4 3

Examined results for maximum off-site impact 

(Figure 6)

NEI11431 Formaldehyde REL 4 3

Examined results for maximum off-site impact 

(Figure 7)

1

 Facilities with a HEM-3 screening acute value greater than 1 were refined.

2

 See Appendix 7 for figures depicting off-site impacts.

Table 4b – Maximum Predicted Acute Risks Greater than 1 (Refined Approach)

Wool Fiberglass Manufacturing

Facility NEI ID Pollutant Criteria

HEM-3

(Screening)

Refined

Results 1 Refined Modeling Approach 2

1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should

not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 19, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-30441 Summary Calendar

BRENNAN’S INC, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus RICHARD J. BRENNAN, JR., DICKIE BRENNAN & COMPANY, INC., COUSINS RESTAURANTS, INC., AND SEVEN SIXTEEN IBERVILLE, L.L.C. Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (USDC No. 2:04-cv-2808)

_________________________________________________________

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:* 1Reviewing the record de novo, we agree with the district court’s order and affirm

the judgment of dismissal for the following reasons: 1. The 1998 contractual agreement between the parties has been the locus of both the current and previous lawsuits. In the previous lawsuit, the jury did not grant the plaintiff’s request to cancel the contract, although it awarded $250,000 in trademark damages. Last year, this court rejected plaintiff’s attack upon the

contract . Brennan’s Inc. v. Dickie Brennan & Co. , 376 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2004). After the conclusion of the first lawsuit, the plaintiff sent the defendant a contract termination letter specifically implicating Louisiana Civil Code Article 2024. As the district court said, there was no impediment to raising plaintiff’s alternative theory of termination under Article 2024 in the first suit. 2. The plaintiff argues an Article 2024 termination represents the exercise of a contractual right rather than a cause of action. This distinction is without effect. “Res judicata prevents litigation of all grounds for, or defenses to, recovery that were previously available to the parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or determined in the prior proceeding.” Brown v. Felsen , 442 U.S. 127, 131, 99 S. Ct. 2205, 2209 (1979). Having failed to raise its Article 2024 argument in the original suit on the 1998 contract, the plaintiff is unable to file a new suit for purposes of rehashing old battles. Affirmed.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 200

To amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the manufacture, importation, and sale of any projectile that may be used in a handgun and

is capable of penetrating police body armor.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 11 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. BRADLEY (for himself, Mr. KOHL, and Mr. SIMON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the

manufacture, importation, and sale of any projectile that

may be used in a handgun and is capable of penetrating

police body armor.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cop Killer Ammunition

5 Ban Act of 1995’’.
2

•S 200 IS

1 SEC. 2. REGULATION OF THE MANUFACTURE, IMPORTA2 TION, AND SALE OF PROJECTILES THAT MAY

3 BE USED IN A HANDGUN AND ARE CAPABLE

4 OF PENETRATING POLICE BODY ARMOR.

5 (a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING

6 AMMUNITION.—Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United

7 States Code, is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (i);

9 (2) by striking the period at the end of clause

10 (ii) and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

11 (3) by adding at the end the following:

12 ‘‘(iii) a projectile that may be used in a hand13 gun and that the Secretary determines, pursuant to

14 section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body

15 armor.’’.

16 (b) DETERMINATION OF THE CAPABILITY OF PRO17 JECTILES TO PENETRATE BODY ARMOR.—Section 926 of

18 such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

19 ‘‘(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enact20 ment of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate

21 standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against the

22 Body Armor Exemplar, based on standards developed in

23 cooperation with the Attorney General of the United

24 States. Such standards shall take into account, among

25 other factors, variations in performance that are related

26 to the length of the barrel of the handgun from which the
3

•S 200 IS

1 projectile is fired and the amount and kind of powder used

2 to propel the projectile.

3 ‘‘(2) As used in paragraph (1), the term ‘Body Armor

4 Exemplar’ means body armor that the Secretary, in co5 operation with the Attorney General of the United States,

6 determines meets minimum standards for protection of

7 law enforcement officers.’’.

Æ
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6805** 

GENEVA ELAINE HAMES , P etitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA, THE STATE OF, Respondent

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Cameron McGowan Currie , District Judge. ( 4:11

- cv - 00710

- GMC )

Submitted : August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012

Before KING and THACKER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Geneva Ela ine Hames, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Geneva Elaine Hames seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on her 28 U .S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and the order denying her motion for reconsideration . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability wi ll not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)

. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would fin d that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, t he prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and concl ude that Hames has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1829 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1829

 To prohibit the purchase of foreign beef by a school participating in 
the school lunch, school breakfast, or child care food program, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 1996

 Mr. Pressler introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the purchase of foreign beef by a school participating in 
the school lunch, school breakfast, or child care food program, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMERICAN BEEF IN CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS.

    The National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) is amended 
by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 28. AMERICAN BEEF IN CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS.

    ``A school or service institution in the continental United States 
participating in the school lunch program, the school breakfast program 
under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773), or 
the child care food program under section 17 may not purchase beef or 
beef food-products produced outside the United States for use in 
carrying out the program.''.
                                 <all>
```