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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         233,904
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  366,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,000
<INVENTORY>                                    300,179
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               898,565
<PP&E>                                         122,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                  64,563
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,774,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          563,880
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        92,976
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,210,550
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,774,430
<SALES>                                        469,309
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               472,442
<CGS>                                          360,602
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  569,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               208,686                               
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (97,318)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (97,318)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (97,318)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3284 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3284

  To ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the 
           United States Government until December 31, 2014.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 10, 2013

  Mr. Levin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To ensure the complete and timely payment of the obligations of the 
           United States Government until December 31, 2014.

    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 ``Default Prevention Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. ENSURING TIMELY PAYMENT.

    Section 2 of the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013 (31 U.S.C. 3101 
note) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``date of the enactment of this Act'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``date of enactment of the 
        Default Prevention Act of 2013'';
            (2) in subsection (a), by striking ``May 18, 2013'' and 
        inserting ``December 31, 2014''; and
            (3) in subsection (b), by striking ``May 19, 2013'' each 
        place it appears and inserting ``January 1, 2015''.
                                 <all>
```
**Public Hearing on NPRM MDE Rule May 8, 2012**   Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to establish standards for accessible medical diagnostic equipment.  Comment period closes on June 8, 2012 **Hearing Procedures**  Registered speakers may speak for 5 minutes each  After all registered speakers have presented, there will be an open microphone session for others to testify  Notify staff at the registration desk if you want to testify and have not preregistered  Please turn off or silence your cell phone **Hearing Procedures**  Transcript will be kept and will be entered into the docket  Written remarks or PowerPoint shows should be given to the staff at the registration desk  Refrai n from reacting publicly to witness presentations or Board member statements
#### CARTER v. CARTER.

No. 12188.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

June 8, 1950.

Otis Scruggs, Jr, of Houston, for appellant.

E. Bruce, of Houston, for appellee.

MONTEITH, Chief Justice.

Appellee, Irene Carter, brought this action for a divorce from appellant, Ed Carter, alleging the usual statutory grounds. Appellant answered by a general denial and by cross-action, in which he sought a divorce from appellee.

In a trial before the court without a jury, judgment was rendered, granting appellant a divorce on his cross-action. In the judgment rendered, certain real estate in the City of Houston was awarded to appellee and the community interest in a barber shop 'in the City of Houston, with its furniture and fixtures, was awarded appellant. Appellant appeals from that portion of the judgment rendered partitioning the estate of the parties.

*792Article-4638, R.C.S., reads: “The .court pronouncing: a decree of divorce shall also decree and order a division of the estate of the parties in such a way as the court shall deem just and right, having due regard to the rights of each party and their children, if any. ’Nothing herein shall be construed to compel eith'ér party to divest himself or herself of th'e title to real estate.”

It is the settled law of’ this State that in divorce cases the trial judge has the responsibility of making a division of the estate of the parties in such a way as the court shall deem just and right, having due regard to the rights of the parties, and that in making the division the court may take into consideration any disparity between the earning powers^ business opportunities, capacity and ability of the parties, and the. benefits which the party not at fault shall have derived from the estate of the other party through a continuance of their marriage. Hendrick v. Hendrick, Tex.Civ.App., 222 S.W.2d 281; Williams v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 171 S.W.2d 530; Puckett v. Puckett, Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W.2d 124; Liddell v. Liddell, Tex.Civ.App., 29 S.W.2d 868; and 15 Tex.Jur. 584.

In the case of Hedtke v. Hedtke, 112 Tex. 404, 248 S.W. 21, 23, the‘Supreme Court, in construing said Article 4638, said: “The court pronouncing a decree of divorce is vested with wide discretion in disposing of any and all property of the parties, separate or community, and * * * its action, in the exercise of such discretion, should be corrected on appeal only where an abuse of discretion is shown in that the disposition made of some property is. manifestly unjust and unfair.”

In the case at bar the trial court-arrived at his decision after a thorough hearing of the facts. A consideration of the-record convinces us that he did not abuse his discretion in making the award obj ected1 to by appellant.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court must be in all things, affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### PENA v. STATE.

No. 25616.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 16, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 27, 1952.

Leo Darley, Uvalde, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Upon an indictment charging murder with malice, appellant was convicted of murder without malice and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

Appellant confessed that he killed deceased by shooting him with a gun, and offered evidence that he shot in self-defense against the. actual attack of deceased and others.

The conclusion is expressed that the facts support the verdict, and appellant’s contrary contention is overruled.

The jury having found appellant guilty only of murder without malice, his contention that the trial court erred in submitting to the jury murder with malice is untenable. For appellant to have been injured by an instruction upon murder with malice, the conviction of necessity would have been for that offense.

Appellant’s contention as presented by his bill1 of exception #4 is answered by 'the well-established rule that in order tO' impeach a witness by proof of the commission of other offenses, such offenses must be felonies or misdemeanors involving moral turpitude. Branch’s P. C., Sec. 167.

Other bills of exception appearing in the record have been examined and are overruled without discussion.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is directed at the complaint that this court erred in not sustaining his Bill of Exception No. 4.

This bill complains because he was not permitted to ask the witness Rudolfo-Martinez about his conduct in living in adultery with a woman not his wife. In the state of the record we see no materiality whatsoever in this evidence. It is true that the jury might have viewed his testimony different from what they did, and yet his testimony so- far as material to anything in the case was on uncontroverted matters. This witness heard a report of the fight outside while he was still on the inside of the saloon. He then testified that he did not see the fight while he was on the outside. Whether or not this is in conflict with any*479thing that appellant testified to is Hot made clear. It would be rather an extreme construction for us to say that it is. From all of the evidence in the case there is little to raise an issue controverting appellant’s story of a conflict between himself and others prior to the shooting. He does not tie himself to specific details and neither does the witness Martinez. The verdict of the jury finding appellant guilty of murder without malice too clearly indicates that the jury found in favor of appellant’s story about others attacking him.

In our view no reversible error was committed by the procedure complained of. Appellant’s motion 'for rehearing is overruled.
1Sitting by assignment.

NO. 07-06-0414-CR

NO. 07-06-0415-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

NOVEMBER 16, 2006

______________________________

JOHANSON LEE WATSON, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 46TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILBARGER COUNTY;

NOS. 9479 & 9480; HONORABLE TOM NEELY, JUDGE1

_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Proceeding pro se, Appellant Johanson Lee Watson perfected this appeal from the

trial court’s orders denying his motion for forensic DNA testing . Through correspondence
2

with the Clerk of this Court, Appellant has expressed an intent to pursue this appeal.

Although he was represented by appointed counsel for purposes of the hearing on his

motion for forensic DNA testing, inquiry by the Clerk of this Court revealed counsel has not

been appointed to prosecute Appellant’s appeal. 

Article 64.01(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a convicted

person is entitled to appointed counsel under certain circumstances during a proceeding

filed pursuant to chapter 64. Article 64.05 provides that an appeal under chapter 64 is to

a court of appeals except in a capital case where a death sentence is imposed, which is

directly appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Article 64.01(c), which provides

for appointed counsel, does not differentiate between the trial and appellate stages.

Consequently, an indigent convicted person is entitled to appointed counsel to prosecute

an appeal under chapter 64. See Gray v. State, 69 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Tex.App.–Waco

2002, no pet.). This Court, however, is not authorized to appoint counsel. See Tex. Code

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04 (Vernon Supp. 2006). Therefore, we now abate this appeal

and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to determine

Appellant’s indigence status. Should the trial court determine that Appellant is indigent,

the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent Appellant in this appeal. If counsel is

appointed, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel

shall be included in an order appointing counsel. The order appointing counsel, if any,
3

must then be included in the clerk’s record and filed with the Clerk of this Court on or

before December 15, 2006.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
Order entered October 10, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 00300 - CV LYNNE DUGGAN, Appellant

V. TANGLEWOOD VILLA OWN ERS ASSOCIATION, INC . , ET AL. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2015 - 1 - 091CV



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s October 6, 2016 “Motion to Extend Time to File Brief to Obtain Counsel.” We GRANT the motion to the extent that appellant shall file a brief by NOVEMBER 9, 2016 . No further extension will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2942 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to reestablish the 

Professional Certification and Licensure Advisory Committee of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2942 EH

1 SECTION 1. REESTABLISHMENT OF PROFESSIONAL CER2 TIFICATION AND LICENSURE ADVISORY COM3 MITTEE. 

4 (a) REESTABLISHMENT.—Section 3689(e)(5) of title 

5 38, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Decem6 ber 31, 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2019’’. 

7 (b) APPOINTMENT OF NEW MEMBERS.—In reestab8 lishing the Professional Certification and Licensure Advi9 sory Committee under subsection (e) of section 3689 of 

10 title 38, United States Code, pursuant to subsection (a), 

11 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may appoint new mem12 bers of the Committee under paragraph (3)(A) of such 

13 subsection (e) without regard to the individuals who served 

14 as members before the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 28, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2942 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to reestaberans Affairs. Advisory Committee of the Department of Vet- lish the Professional Certification and Licensure
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of CLP Holdings Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andrew Brandler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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:  June 22, 2007



| |  |     |  |                        
| |  | --- |  | -----------------------
| |  |     |  | /s/ Andrew Brandler    
| |  | By: |  |                        
| |  |     |  | Andrew Brandler        
| |  |     |  | Chief Executive
Officer



|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                  ------------

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Report of Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period from January 1, 2004 to December 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies 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), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the period indicated.

      This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


      Dated: March 31, 2005         By:  /s/ Bruce Mogel
                                         -------------------------
                                         Bruce Mogel
                                         Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         242
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  489
<ALLOWANCES>                                   66
<INVENTORY>                                    479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,308
<PP&E>                                         82
<DEPRECIATION>                                 11
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,880
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          602
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       209
<OTHER-SE>                                     769
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,880
<SALES>                                        665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               665
<CGS>                                          339
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               457
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (136)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (55)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (82) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.04)
                                                     


</TABLE>
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

(lyou make du111ges to the \'c.dues in the table he/on·. you 1111/Stensure the totals updute ac.:c.:ordillgly. (l 

they do 110t, click (or Tuh) i11to wul then out of the changed Gel/. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

replacement) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

Do not include on- (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet 

condition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspection and 24.5 $801 X 25 modification 

II I( I ( ll Ill 

p \1( I (,lj ' () II I) l' I It(, I 

fl I ( ()II II (I I 

II .If I' ()( (J .Oil 

I H 11()1 I () I 

II II( (' ll(l (,.( 1(1 

(I 0\ G 00 ( (J 

0 /1( 0 (){) I'(YI 

,I II 0 Ill' II 

J ( l {I ()(J 1 r,; 

' (,( (Ill() II (II' 

Ill! () 00 ,, ,, I I ll (l ()() II Iii, 

I (1' () O() II Oil 

I, {)I /) (l{ I (I till 

( ()I 0 (1(1 (I HI 

(, /)( () If() ' HI 

II Cll 'I fill 'I 111 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $72,088 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: ~ 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

testing, and close- replacement) up) 

" (I ( 'I ~ li 01 

II I)') ~ () t)() 

,\ '"' 01 II ( J( I 

" r or • : 1 1il 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

7 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? ~ 

YES* D NO cgj 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? -

YES* D NO cgj 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer . • 

YES D NO cgj 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

a ircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? .@1 

YES* D NO cgj 

*Explanation: 

8