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
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME FROM THE
DECEMBER 31, 1997 FORM 10-K REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,330,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,949,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,279,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             139,265,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,964,000
<BONDS>                                      8,982,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       318,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  85,886,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               139,265,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,006,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,654,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,161,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             672,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,519,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   671,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            848,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   848,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.08


</TABLE>
#### Arthur FANNIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28519.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 7, 1956.

*849Tom Howard, Dallas, for appellant.

Leqn B.- .Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. . , (. , .

DICE, Commissioner.'

The conviction is for indecent exposure to a child under sixteen years of age, in , violation of Art. 535c, V.A.P.C.; the .punishment, 15 years.

Appellant insists that the court erred in overruling his motion for' an instructed ver- ■ diet because the state failed to prove the date on which the offense was committed, and particularly that it was committed within the period of limitation.

The only evidence .in the record relative to the time..when the offense was committed;' is found in the testimony of the prosecuting witness; From her testimony we quote:

> “Q. I am going to ask you, Mary Lou, if that man, Arthur’ Fannin, ever. bothered you? A. Yes, sir.

> “Q. When was it, Mary Lou? A. It was Saturday before Thanksgiving.

> *“Q.*Saturday before Thanksgiving. At the time he bothered you, Mary Lou, was anyone at 'home? ' A. My brother was — baby brother,”... ..

The indictment alleged that the offense was committed on of about the 23rd day of December, 1955.

The rule is well settled that the state is not bo.und by the date alleged in the indictment and may prove that an offense was committed'befofe, on, or after the date alleged, so long as the date is anterior to the. presentment of the indictment and not barred by limitation. Branch’s Ann.P.C., 1st.Ed., Sec. 439, P. 231; Moon v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 570, 69 S.W.2d 70; and Abston v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 88, 253, S.W.2d 41.

However,' tó sustáin'a conviction, the proof must show that the offense was committed anterior to the return of the indictment and at such time'that the prosetution would not be barred by 'limitation. Branch’s Ann.P.C., 1st Éd., Sec. 441, P. 231; Temple v. State, 15 Tex.App. 304, 49 Am.Rep. 200; Lucas v. State, 27 Tex.App. 322, 11 S.W. 443; Stewart v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 153, 19 S.W. 908; Fisher v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 102, 24 S.W.2d 1101; Smith v. State, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 686, 65 S.W.2d 309; and Womack v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 551, 170 S.W.2d 478.

The testimony of the prosecuting witness merely shows that the offense was committed on “Saturday before Thanksgiving.” Her testimony does not disclose the year that the offense .was committed, nor can the same be ascertained by a search of the. enT tire record.

Because the proof fails to show that the offense was committed at such time as that the prosecution would' not be barred by the three-year statute of limitation the' evidence is insufficient to support the conviction.

For such reason, the judgment is reversed and the catíse remanded.

Opinion, approved by the. court ,,
|   | (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 Fund. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |           |   |   |                                                 |
|--------|----------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated: | March 15, 2011 | By:    | /s/    | ROBERT E. SWANSON                                    |
|   |           |   | Name:  | Robert E. Swanson                                    |
|   |           |   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer                              |
|   |           |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|   |           |   |   |                                                 |
|   |           |   |   |                                                 |
| Dated: | March 15, 2011 | By:    | /s/    | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY                                 |
|   |           |   | Name:  | Kathleen P. McSherry                                 |
|   |           |   | Title: | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |           |   |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)         |
|   |           |   |   |                                                 |
|   |           |   |   |                                                 |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1911 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1911

To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to permanently extend the 
period of protections for servicemembers against mortgage foreclosures, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 13, 2011

Mr. Braley of Iowa introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to permanently extend the 
period of protections for servicemembers against mortgage foreclosures, 
                        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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Veterans' Homes Act''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF PROTECTIONS FOR SERVICEMEMBERS 
              AGAINST MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES.

    (a) Extended Period of Protections.--
            (1) Stay of proceedings and period of adjustment of 
        obligations relating to real or personal property.--Section 
        303(b) of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 
        533(b)) is amended by striking ``within 9 months'' and 
        inserting ``within 12 months''.
            (2) Period of relief from sale, foreclosure, or seizure.--
        Section 303(c) of such Act (50 U.S.C. App. 533(c)) is amended 
        by striking ``within 9 months'' and inserting ``within 12 
        months''.
    (b) Repeal of Sunset.--Subsection (c) of section 2203 of the 
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-289; 50 
U.S.C. App. 533 note) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

Certificationof Chief Executive Officer

I,Richard A. Smith, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q, asamended, of Eschelon Telecom, Inc.;

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

a)     designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

c)     disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’sboard of directors:

a)     all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
|   | November 13, 2006 |
|--------|-------------------|
|   |              |   |   |   |
|   |              |   |   |   |
|   | Sign:             | /S/ |   | Richard A. Smith |   |
|   |              | Richard A. Smith |   |
|   |              | President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|        |                   |  |  |  |  |  |

 

 

1

----
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DIST RICT OF TEXAS F ORT WORTH N O
. 2 - 1 0 - 0 5 4 - C V J E A N N A N I C O L E A R N O L D A P P E L L A N T A N D A P P E L L E E V

. M A T T H E W P R I C E A P P E L L E E A N D A P P E L L A N T

- - - - - - - - - - F R O M T H E 3 2 4 T H D I S T R I C T C O U R T O F T A R R A N T C O U N T Y

- - - - - - - - - - 

### M E M O R AN D U M O P I N I O N 1 

### AN D J U D G M E N T

- - - - - - - - - - W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d “ A p p e l l e e ’ s M o t i o n T o D i s m i s s C r o s s A p p e a l , ” f i l e d b y M a t t h e w P r i c e
. I t i s t h e c o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n t h a t t h e m o t i o n s h o u l d b e g r a n t e d ; t h e r e f o r e ,
w e d i s m i s s t h e c r o s s - a p p e a l o f M a t t h e w P r i c e
. S e e T e x
. R

. A p p
. P

. 4 2

. 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 4 3

. 2 ( f )

. C o s t s o f t h e c r o s s - a p p e a l s h a l l b e p a i d b y t h e a p p e l l e e , f o r w h i c h l e t e x e c u t i o n i s s u e
. S e e T e x
. R

. A p p
. P

. 4 3

. 4

. P E R C U R I A M P A N E L : L I V I N G S T O N , D A U P H I N O T , a n d G A R D N E R , J J

. D E L I V E R E D : A p r i l 1 5 , 2 0 1 0

1

 S e e T e x
. R

. A p p
. P

. 4 7

. 4

.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1456
PATRICK G. DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee, and STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY; AUSTIN HOMES; AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY; DAVIDSON UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, Respondents.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (MISC-99-4-3-V) Submitted: June 21, 2001 Decided: June 28, 2001 Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Patrick G. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth L. Greene, Carol Ann Barthel, Lawrence P. Blaskopf, Christopher J. Kayser, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Patrick G. Davis appeals the district court’s order denyingthe Petitioner’s petition to quash summons and motion to quashattest. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Davis v. United States , No. MISC-99-4-3-V (W.D.N.C. Feb. 7, 2001). We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 17, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0576

Lower Tribunal No. F13-5321

________________

Joseph T. Swift,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Richard Hersch, Judge.

Joseph T. Swift, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00661

- CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

v. ALFRED SCHUETZE
On Appeal from the 445th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2016

- DCL

- 00585

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having co nsidered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered . The Court orders the judgment of the t rial court REVERSED and RENDERS judgment denying Schuetze's petition for expunction regarding his arrest on November 21, 2014

. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 10, 2019
#### STATE of Missouri (Plaintiff), Respondent, v. JUVENILE DEFENDANTS, Appellants.

No. 29553.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 12, 1956.

*629Charles M. Shaw, Clayton, for appellants.

Edw. W. Garnholz, Pros. Atty., Clayton, for respondent.

WOLFE, Commissioner.

The defendants, who were sixteen years of age, were charged with delinquency by reason of rape upon a fourteen-year-old girl. Both were found to be delinquent as charged and were committed to the State Board of Training Schools for an indeterminate sentence. Both have appealed from the judgment and sentence. They appealed to the Supreme Court, which, for want of jurisdiction, transferred the appeals to this court.

Neither appellant has filed a bill of exceptions and our review is therefore limited to the record proper. State v. Birkner, Mo.Sup., 229 S.W.2d 674; State v. Nichols, Mo.Sup., 165 S.W.2d 674; State v. Clayton, Mo.Sup., 242 S.W.2d 565.

The information" charges that the defendants are delinquents by reason of the rape which took place on June 24, 1955, when they did “ * * * wilfully and unlawfully forcibly rape, ravish and carnally know a minor female child of the age of 14 years, * * * ” The language used was sufficient to charge the crime .which is commonly called statutory rape and the consequent delinquency by reason of having committed it. State v. Nichols, Mo.Sup., 165 S.W.2d 674, supra.

There is no showing of record that there was an arraignment but the record shows both defendants were present in court and represented by counsel. They were tried as if they had been arraigned and had entered a plea of not guilty. In such cases failure of the record to show arraignment does not constitute reversible error. 42 V.A.M.S. Supreme Court Rule 25.04.

'Neither does the record show that allocution was accorded the defendants but this is not mandatory where the defendant has been heard on the motion for a new trial as these defendants were. Supreme Court Rule 27.10.

There being no reversible error, it is the recommendation of the Commissioner that the judgment be affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of WOLFE, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.

The judgment of the circuit court is accordingly affirmed.

ANDERSON, P. J., and RUDDY and MATTHES, JJ., concur.
#### CITY OF WINCHESTER, Kentucky, Appellant, v. Tracy WOOD et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 8, 1954.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Jan. 21, 1955.

Beverly White, Winchester, for appellant.

William Hays, Winchester, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

We are affirming the judgment in this case which awarded appellees the sum of $1,200 for damages to their property resulting from the construction of a street by appellant, because there was sufficient evidence that the streets were constructed negligently to take the case to the jury on that question.

We recognize the rule that the city is not liable for consequential damages arising from original construction of streets. However, that rule is not controlling here in view of the negligence question involved. See City of Owensboro v. Hope, 128 Ky. 524, 108 S.W. 873, 15 L.R.A.,N.S., 996, and City of Louisville v. Sauter, 149 Ky. 721, 149 S.W. 1029.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

m 01-10282

_______________

MURRAY L. CHAPPELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

JONCO FLEET SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

m 3:99-CV-1069-M

_________________________

January 2, 2002

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and BENAVIDES,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Murray Chappell appeals a summary

judgment in this action he brought under the

Americans with Disabilities Act. The

defendant, Jonco Fleet Services, Inc., refused

to hire Chappell because there were

restrictions on how much he could lift. He

claims that the refusal to hire was because the

company perceived him as disabled.

We have reviewed the briefs and pertinent

portions of the record and have heard the

arguments of counsel. We affirm the judgment

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2

of the district court adopting the findings and

recommendations of the magistrate judge.

The summary judgment record establishes

that Chappell was not perceived as precluded

from a broad range of jobs. For example, he

could have been a truck driver for some

employer other than Jonco, and nothing in

Jonco’s perception indicated to the contrary;

he was not perceived assubstantially limited in

a major life activity as that term is understood

under the ADA.

AFFIRMED.
Public Hearing for 

2012 Standards and 2013 Biomass-Based 

Diesel Volume under the Renewable 

Fuel Standard Program 

July 12, 2011 

Agenda

9:00 am EPA Opening Statement 

Paul Argyropoulos 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

 9:15 am Testimony from parties that pre-notified EPA 

 Order of witnesses: 

 R. Brooke Coleman AEC & RFA 

 Greg Scott NPRA 

 Joe Jobe NBB 

 Patrick Kelly API 

 Jim Nussle Growth Energy 

 Glenn Johnston ABFA 

 Neville Fernandez Neste Oil 

 Ms. Sarah Thornton BIO 

 Ramon M. Benavides GEN-X Energy Group, Inc. 

 David Elsenbast Renewable Energy Group 

 Testimony from walk-ins 

 

Hearing will adjourn when all parties have presented testimony
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ITEM 8 TO THE INTEGRATED RESOURCES HIGH EQUITY PARTNERS,
SERIES 85 1996 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,870,517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  158,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,290,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,811,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,290,185
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,888,016
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,139,504
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,865,130
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,134,717
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,134,717
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,134,717
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>