alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| **Nature of Operations and Financial Statement Presentation (Details Textual)**    | 3 Months Ended |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Nature of Operations and Financial Statement Presentation (Textual) [Abstract]** |           |
| Number of business reportable segment                                              | 1              |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**agys_NatureOfOperationsAndFinancialStatementPresentationTextualAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**agys_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Number of segments reported by the entity. A reportable segment is a component of an entity for which there is an accounting requirement to report separate financial information on that component in the entity's financial statements.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_NumberOfReportableSegments**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:integerItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
#### McELROY v. STATE.

No. 24369.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 4, 1949.

Chas. Nordyke, of Stephenville, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of drunken driving and assessed a fine of $150, and he appeals.

The record herein that is before us contains no final judgment of the trial court. In the absence of such judgment, we find this court without jurisdiction.

The appeal is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hector Velasquez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), rendered April 15, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

After both the defense counsel and the prosecutor gave their summations, the Trial Judge was informed by a court officer that an alternate juror had reported to him that she was approached by the defendant’s sister, who had stated to the juror that the defendant was innocent. Upon questioning by the Trial Judge, the alternate juror stated, in relevant part, that she had related the incident to the jury foreperson. After discharging the alternate juror, without objection by the defense counsel, the Trial Judge separately questioned the foreperson, who specifically stated that her knowledge of this incident would not have any affect on her deliberations. Moreover, the foreperson stated that while she was aware of the presence of the defendant’s sister in the courtroom, it did not create any feeling of sympathy. Over the defense counsel’s objection, the Trial Judge discharged the foreperson, stating, "I would rather not take the chance that while she’s giving us the right answers, it may subconsciously affect her.”

*365It is clear from the Trial Judge’s examination of the foreperson that she did not manifest a state of mind which warranted the conclusion that she was grossly unqualified to serve *(see, CPL*270.35; *People v Cargill,*70 NY2d 687; *People v Buford,*69 NY2d 290; *People v Garcia,*153 AD2d 951). Indeed, the Trial Judge discharged the foreperson based on speculation as to her possible partiality despite her unequivocal statements to the contrary *(see, People v Cargill, supra; People v Buford, supra).*Since the erroneous dismissal of a juror is not subject to a harmless error analysis, reversal is mandated *(see, People v Anderson,*70 NY2d 729).

Because there may be a new trial, we further note that the People should not have been permitted to impeach one of their witnesses, who purportedly had seen the shooting, but, at trial, had no recollection of the incident. Pursuant to CPL 60.35 (1), when the People call a witness who gives testimony upon a material issue which tends to disprove the People’s position at trial, the People may then seek to introduce prior written signed statements and oral sworn statements by that party which contradict the trial testimony. However, the testimony sought to be impeached must affirmatively damage the People’s position. At bar, the mere failure of the witness to recollect the incident in question did not affirmatively damage the People’s case *(see, People v Fitzpatrick,*40 NY2d 44; *People v Comer,*146 AD2d 794).

We need not address the defendant’s remaining contention. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Hooper, JJ., concur.
|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                            
|                                                                                                         
|Colorado Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                         
|Colorado Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 649    | 1,888  | 1,431  | 1,375 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 553    | 537    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### NAILING v. STATE.

No. 23689.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 18, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for possession of material and equipment for the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor, as prohibited by Sec. T of Art. 666 — 17a, Vernon’s P.C.; the punishment, a fine of $250.00.

In a creek-bed in a thickly wooded section, officers came upon appellant and two other parties seated around and near two wooden barrels of whisky mash, three empty barrels — two wooden and one iron-— and some half-gallon fruit jars, buckets, and tubs. Upon the approach of the officers-, all three of the parties fled and were not apprehended until some time thereafter. One of the parties (McAllister) lived about a quarter of a mile away. Appellant resided at Manchester, some five or six miles away.

There is no testimony as to the ownership or possession of the land upon which the material and equipment were found.

The State’s case against appellant rests upon his presence at the time and place and his flight at the approach of the officers. There is no testimony directly connecting him with the offense charged.

In submitting the case to the jury the trial court did not define the term “possession,” nor did he give to the jury any definition or facts by which the jury were to be governed in determining whether or not appellant was in possession of the material and equipment, as alleged.

Appellant excepted to the charge and presented requested charges properly defining that term.

The opinion is expressed that, under the facts here presented, the trial court erred in not responding to appellant’s request. See Wells v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 201, 67 S.W.2d 305; English v. State, 119 Tex. Cr.R. 202, 46 S.W.2d 697; Andrews v. State, 106 Tex.Cr.R. 357, 292 S.W. 880.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                      
|View History: Annual                                                
|View History: Annual                                                
|View History:                                                       
|                                                                    
|Kansas Shale Proved Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                    
|                                                                    
|Kansas Shale Proved Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 0      | 0      | 6      | 1      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
----

|   | a.     | A                    review of the activities of the Co-op Special Servicer during the                    preceding calendar year and of its performance under the Pooling                    and                    Servicing Agreement has been madeunder                    my supervision. |
|--------|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|

|   | b.     | To                    the best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the Co-op Special                    Servicer has fulfilled all obligations under this agreement in                    all                    material respects throughout the                    year. |
|--------|----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|

----
#### BRASHEAR v. PAYNE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 26, 1954.

R. Lee Brown and Joe Feather, Williams-burg, for appellant.

Glenn "H. Stephens, Williamsburg, Thomas F. Young, Corbin, for appellee.

MORRIS, Commissioner.

The trial court on August 3, 1953, dis-i missed appellant’s petition by which he sought, to have the court enjoin appellee from obstructing an alley in the City of Corbin. Following the filing of the record the court granted an appeal. Appellee moved for a dismissal on the ground that the value of the amount or thing in controversy is not stated in the petition or judgment; hence appellant could not prosecute his appeal as a matter of right, and had not moved for appeal. In support of lfis motion he refers us to.the radical change in 21.060, KRS 1948 by an amendment adopted by the General Assembly in 1952, 21.060, KRS 1953. The amending act became effective June 19, 1952. We gave consideration and effect to it in Hopwood v. Crowe, Ky., 259 S.W.2d 40, holding that where the amount in controversy, was insufficient to allow appeal as a matter of right, failure to move for appeal authorized dismissal.

Section 21.060, prior to amendment, provided that appeals might be taken as a matter of right in the classes of cases specifically mentioned, and in all other cases except from a judgment for “the recovery of money or personal property, * * * where the value in controversy is less than five hundred dollars, exclusive of interest and costs”, then made other specific exceptions, and further provided that in cases where the amount in controversy was as much as $200 this court would entertain a motion for appeal. The amendment makes material changes; it narrows the scope of appealable cases, and places a higher limitation on the amount involved necessary to give appellate jurisdiction. It allows, as a matter of right, appeals in “all * * * civil cases”, except from judgments “where the value of the amount or thing in controversy is less than twenty-five hundred dollars, exclusive of interest and costs”, and then classifies other non-appealable cases. The section eliminates the words “money or personal property,” thus making it apply in all civil cases, save those specifically excepted.

We do not overlook appellant’s contention that he was entitled to appeal as a matter *347of right, since it had been held that in cases where injunctive relief was sought, the amount in controversy was immaterial. McKim v. Smith, 294 Ky. 835, 172 S.W.2d 634; Charos v. Jent, 293 Ky. 50, 168 S.W.2d 334. These opinions were rendered before the amendment of KRS 21.060, and they were based on the theory that suit for injunction was not one for money or personal property.

We are of the opinion that under the terms of the amended section we are without authority to consider the matter on merits; therefore the motion to dismiss is sustained.
32**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, Joseph S. Lerczak, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Sparton Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is beingprepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: May 9, 2008 /s/ JOSEPH S. LERCZAK     Joseph S. Lerczak, Chief Financial Officer
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4857 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Vinylidene chloride-methyl 

methacrylate-acrylonitrile copolymer. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 26, 2012 

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Vinylidene 

chloride-methyl methacrylate-acrylonitrile copolymer. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VINYLIDENE CHLORIDE-METHYL METHACRY4 LATE-ACRYLONITRILE COPOLYMER. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.09 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 Vinylidene chloride-methyl methacrylate-acrylonitrile co8 polymer) is amended by striking the date in the effective 

9 period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4857 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                                                             
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                
|                                                                                             
|Oklahoma Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Divestitures (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                             
|                                                                                             
|Oklahoma Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Divestitures (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 5     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 26     | 9      | 5      | 17     | 2      | 46     | 4      | 12     | 51    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 5      | 18     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023