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


        

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF  SYMETRICS  INDUSTRIES  INC.  FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER  30,  1996,  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,048
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,155
<PP&E>                                           3,613
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,731
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,974
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           403
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,857
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,958
<SALES>                                         12,733
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,733
<CGS>                                            9,648  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,482
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,628
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,269  
<INCOME-TAX>                                       501
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                768
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       768
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48

        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CHRISTIAN BEILER, DOC #C08422, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2744 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed May 3, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Stephen M. Walker, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
MORRIS, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14927

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 4:12-cv-00470-RH-CAS; 4:10-cr-00025-RH-CAS-1

ALDO RAY WILSON, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(January 3, 2019)

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Aldo Wilson appeals the District Court’s decision denying his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion to vacate his sentence, after a jury convicted him of being a felon in 

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e), the 

Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). 

Case: 15-14927 Date Filed: 01/03/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

In his § 2255 motion, Mr. Wilson raised one claim of ineffective assistance 

of trial counsel. Mr. Wilson later filed a supplemental § 2255 motion, challenging

his ACCA sentence and relying on Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 133 

S. Ct. 2276 (2013). Following issuance of the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. __, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that the 

residual clause of the ACCA was unconstitutionally vague, Mr. Wilson also 

asserted a Johnson claim in his reply brief. 

Following the recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court 

rejected both the Descamps claim and the Johnson claim, and we granted a 

certificate of appealability. After Mr. Wilson filed his opening brief on appeal, this 

Court issued Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2017), which held 

that Descamps and Johnson claims were distinct for purposes of determining 

timeliness and which clarified the burden of proof for establishing a Johnson claim 

in a § 2255 proceeding. 

Because the District Court did not have the benefit of our decision in 

Beeman when it ruled on Mr. Wilson’s § 2255 motion, we vacate and remand. On

remand, the District Court should decide the timeliness and merits of each claim. 

As to the timeliness question, the district court should also consider Mr. Wilson’s 

contention that the Government has waived its statute of limitations defense, and in 

Case: 15-14927 Date Filed: 01/03/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

doing so, it should consider the entire record, both the record before the district 

court and the record on appeal in this Court. 

VACATED AND REMANDED. 

Case: 15-14927 Date Filed: 01/03/2019 Page: 3 of 3
Re:cost estimation methods for SCR cost estimation methods for SCR

Don_Shepherd Shepherd Shepherd to: david.hurlbut, Anita Lee, 

Patricia_F_Brewer 09/29/2011 03:30 PM

1 attachment

updated NPS SCR modified Cost manual approach for NGS #1.xlsx

I think that the previous version used SRP's 9.8% interest rate instead of

the Cost Manual 7% interest rate, so here is the 7% solution:

(See attached file: updated NPS SCR modified Cost manual approach for NGS

#1.xlsx)

Don Shepherd

National Park Service

Air Resources Division

12795 W. Alameda Pkwy.

Lakewood, CO 80228

Phone: 303-969-2075

Fax: 303-969-2822

E-Mail: don_shepherd@nps.gov

 

 Don 

 Shepherd/DENVER/N 

 PS To 

 david.hurlbut@nrel.gov 

 09/27/2011 08:08 cc 

 AM Lee.Anita@epamail.epa.gov, 

 Patricia_F_Brewer@nps.gov 

 Subject 

 Re: cost estimation methods for SCR 

 (Document link: Don Shepherd) 

 

David,

I have atached a new and improved version fo the info i sent last week:

[attachment "updated NPS SCR modified Cost manual approach for NGS #1.xlsx"

deleted by Don Shepherd/DENVER/NPS] [attachment "CCM workbook

explanation.docx" deleted by Don Shepherd/DENVER/NPS]

Don
 

 Don 

 Shepherd/DENVER/N 

 PS To 

 David J. Hurlbut 

 09/21/2011 05:33 cc 

 PM Patricia_F_Brewer@nps.gov, 

 Lee.Anita@epamail.epa.gov 

 Subject 

 cost estimation methods for SCR 

 

David,

As requested, I am enclosing a hurried draft of my latest Excel workbook

for estimating NGS SCR costs along with an attempt to explain what i have

done:

[attachment "updated NPS SCR modified Cost Manual approach for NGS #1.xlsx"

deleted by Don Shepherd/DENVER/NPS] [attachment "CCM workbook

explanation.docx" deleted by Don Shepherd/DENVER/NPS]

I am out until next week.

Don Shepherd

National Park Service

Air Resources Division

12795 W. Alameda Pkwy.

Lakewood, CO 80228

Phone: 303-969-2075

Fax: 303-969-2822

E-Mail: don_shepherd@nps.gov
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 10558 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Bobby Joe Garcia,** Defendant

— Appellant

**.**
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:21

- CR

- 96

- 1 9

Before **Smith, Dennis,** and **Southwick,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
The attorney appointed to represent Bobby Joe Garcia has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the

re levant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 7, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-10558 Document: 00516570056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2022No. 22

- 10558

2 assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from further resp onsibilities herein, and the **APPEAL IS DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2

. Case: 22-10558 Document: 00516570056 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/07/2022
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 Annual Report of LaSalle Hotel Properties
(LHO) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Hans S. Weger, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer of LHO, 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, containing the financial statements, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of LHO.

February 22, 2007



/s/    HANS S. WEGERHans S. WegerExecutive Vice President, Treasurerand Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 2.5



                                  A.V.E., INC.
                           A NEVADA STATE CORPORATION


                               BOARD OF DIRECTORS
                                   RESOLUTION


JANUARY 5, 1998
RENO, NEVADA


RESOLVED:  That effective 12:01 am January 6, 1998 that the Board hereby
appoints the following new Officers and Directors:



R. Gene Klawetter, Chairman, CEO
Tom Athans, President, Director
Dan M. Smith, V.P. Finance, CFO
George Sullivan, V.P. Operations, Secretary


Effective simultaneously with the new appointments, shall be the resignations
of:

Henri R. Hornby, President
Neil F. Hornby, Secretary, Director


ATTEST:


/s/ HENRI R. HORNBY                     /s/ NEIL F. HORNBY
Henri R. Hornby                         Neil F. Hornby

Director                                Director


A.V.E., INC., 3653 HEMLOCK COURT, RENO, NEVADA 89509, 702-829-8812,
FAX-702-829-8813
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 7, 2017

t0227 

# Order

Clerk March 7, 2017

153631 (21)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153631

COA: 330858

Oakland CC: 01

- 177484

- FC

SHERWIN TERRELL SHELTON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November

30, 2016 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order

was entered erroneously.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 65298]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28003]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

[OMB Control Number 0704-0229]


Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement; Foreign Acquisition

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION:  Correction to notice.

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

SUMMARY: DoD is issuing a correction to the notice published at 65 FR 
63844 on October 25, 2000, that requested comments regarding a proposed 
extension of an approved information collection requirement. The notice 
inadvertently omitted recordkeeping hours from the estimate of annual 
burden hours shown for the information collection requirement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, Defense Acquisition 
Regulations Council, OUSD (AT&L)DP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense 
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062. Telephone (703) 602-0288; telefax 
(703) 602-0350.

Correction

    In the issue of Wednesday, October 25, 2000, on page 63844, in the 
third column, in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the entry 
``Annual Burden Hours'' is corrected to read as follows:
    Annual Burden Hours: 374,268 (74,173 reporting hours; 300,095 
recordkeeping hours).

Michele P. Peterson,
Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
[FR Doc. 00-28003 Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 1, 2015

Order 

September 1, 2015

152182(19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v

FREDERICK MARTEZ MARTIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

SC: 152182

COA: 325070

Wayne CC: 09-023095-FC

________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellant for leave to file a 

brief in excess of the page limit restriction is GRANTED. The 79-page brief submitted 

on August 19, 2015, is accepted for filing.
StateFacility NameFacility ID (ORISPL)Unit IDYearFuelCO2 (short tons)Heat Input (MMBtu)Gross Load (MW-h)lb/MWhNDCoal Creek603012012Dried ND Lignite5,299,44648,676,8115,008,6862,116.10NDCoal Creek603012013Dried ND Lignite5,300,53048,686,8104,980,5562,128.49NDCoal Creek603012014Dried ND Lignite5,039,19846,286,3124,724,8612,133.06NDCoal Creek603012015Dried ND Lignite5,123,40247,059,7904,776,8892,145.08NDCoal Creek603022012Dried ND Lignite5,220,46947,951,4094,930,3802,117.67NDCoal Creek603022013Dried ND Lignite4,782,06143,924,5484,555,2522,099.58NDCoal Creek603022014Dried ND Lignite5,065,73346,530,0634,879,8642,076.18NDCoal Creek603022015Dried ND Lignite5,013,82346,053,3174,775,4082,099.85NDAntelope Valley6469B12012ND Lignite3,831,93935,197,3793,407,8552,248.89NDAntelope Valley6469B12013ND Lignite3,997,23136,715,5973,507,7292,279.10NDAntelope Valley6469B12014ND Lignite3,387,85631,118,4212,940,6482,304.16NDAntelope Valley6469B12015ND Lignite4,040,77137,115,5523,509,9982,302.43NDAntelope Valley6469B22012ND Lignite3,905,92635,877,0263,412,7802,289.00NDAntelope Valley6469B22013ND Lignite3,594,80333,019,2713,030,3602,372.53NDAntelope Valley6469B22014ND Lignite3,966,34036,431,8733,293,9792,408.24NDAntelope Valley6469B22015ND Lignite4,307,54839,565,9683,599,8002,393.22MTColstrip607632012Sub-bituminous5,564,14153,052,4685,169,4612,152.70MTColstrip607632013Sub-bituminous6,858,34865,392,3216,556,0322,092.23MTColstrip607632014Sub-bituminous5,333,12550,849,8195,006,3812,130.53MTColstrip607632015Sub-bituminous6,391,95860,945,4026,116,2572,090.15MTColstrip607642012Sub-bituminous5,855,08455,826,5325,436,6052,153.95MTColstrip607642013Sub-bituminous2,494,11323,780,6472,351,6012,121.20MTColstrip607642014Sub-bituminous5,885,40556,115,6545,551,2152,120.40MTColstrip607642015Sub-bituminous6,525,75562,221,1396,170,0992,115.28
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27141]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-6889-6]


Tennessee: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste 
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Tennessee has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the 
changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant final authorization to 
Tennessee. In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal 
Register, EPA is authorizing the changes by an immediate final rule. 
EPA did not make a proposal prior to the immediate final rule because 
we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments 
that oppose it. We have explained the reasons for this authorization in 
the preamble to the immediate final rule. Unless we get written 
comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the 
immediate final rule will become effective on the date it establishes, 
and we will not take further action on this proposal. If we get 
comments that oppose this action, we will withdraw the immediate final 
rule and it will not take effect. We will then respond to public 
comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You may not have 
another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on this action, 
you must do so at this time.

DATES: Send your written comments by November 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Narindar Kumar, Chief, RCRA 
Programs Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, The Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 
Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104. You can examine copies of the 
materials submitted by Tennessee during normal business hours at the 
following locations: EPA Region 4 Library, The Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal 
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104, Phone 
number: (404) 562-8190; or Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation, Division of Solid Waste Management, 5th Floor, L & C 
Tower, 401 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1535, Phone 
number: (615) 532-0850.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Narindar Kumar, Chief, RCRA Programs 
Branch, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
at the above address and phone number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the 
immediate final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section 
of this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 29, 2000.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 00-27141 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3102

TERESITA LAZARTE,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board

in SF0831080468-I-1.

ON MOTION

Before LINN Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Office of Personnel Management's motion for an

extension of time, until April 27, 2009, to file its brief,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

MAY -12009 	/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date	 Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	Teresita Lazarte

Leslie Cayer Ohta, Esq.

s8

MeV_

U.S. COURT OF AMAI.3 FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

MAY -1 Z009

CLERK
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 10

- 00857

- CV
Danita E. ANDERSON , Appellant

v. ERIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT as Assignee of Citibank Plati n um Select, Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 5 , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 354484 Honorable Linda F. Penn , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 15, 2011
DISMISSED The partie s have filed a document titled, “Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal.” In the motion, the parties state they “have resolved all issues related to this action” and “ask the Court
to dismiss A ppellee’s original cause of action” “with prejudice to the refiling of same by either party.” The motion is signed by appellant, who is pro se , and by appellee’s attorney of re cord. Based on the joint motion, the intent of the parties is to dismiss not only this appeal but the underlying cause of action with prejudice.04

- 10

- 00857

- CV

- 2

- The motion is granted. All previous orders and judgments, both trial and appellate, are set aside and the cause is dismissed with prejudice. See Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc. v. Hughes , 827 S.W.2d 859, 859 (Tex. 1992); Exxon Corp. v. Butler , 61 9 S.W.2d 399, 399 (Tex. 1981); Freeman v. Burrows , 171 S.W.2d 863, 863

- 64 (1943); Caballero v. Heart of Texas Pizza,
L.L.C. , 70 S.W.3d 180, 181 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2001, no pet.). Costs of appeal are taxed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d) (“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.”).
PER CURIAM
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 22, 2020 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00436-CV 

No. 05-20-00437-CV 

IN THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF V.B., APPELLANT 

V. 

STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. MI-20-00793, MED-20-80184 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Burns, Molberg, and Nowell 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Before the Court is appellants’ April 16, 2020 notice of withdrawal of appeals. 

Accordingly, we DISMISS these proceedings. 

 200436F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/ 

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE BEST INTEREST AND 

PROTECTION OF V.B., Appellant 

No. 05-20-00436-CV V. 

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Probate Court 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. MI-20-00793. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and Nowell 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered April 22, 2020. 

 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE BEST INTEREST AND 

PROTECTION OF V.B., Appellant 

No. 05-20-00437-CV V. 

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Probate Court 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. MED-20-

80184. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and Nowell 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered April 22, 2020