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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          57,953
<SECURITIES>                                    38,877
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,867
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,200
<INVENTORY>                                        183
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               154,124
<PP&E>                                          34,175
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 244,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,462
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       188,733
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   244,970
<SALES>                                         87,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,444
<CGS>                                           13,858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   72,552
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,166)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,238
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                962
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       962
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 214 (Friday, November 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28413]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIMES AND DATES: 1 p.m., Monday, November 13, 2000; 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, 
November 14, 2000; 10 a.m., Tuesday, November 14, 2000.

PLACE: Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 
L'Enfant Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

STATUS: November 13 (Closed); November 14--8:30 a.m. (Open); 10 a.m. 
(Closed).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:   

Monday, November 13--1 p.m. (Closed)

    1. Financial Performance.
    2. Fiscal Year 2001 Integrated Financial Plan.
    3. Enhanced Security Capability.
    4. International Mail Rates.
    5. Quarterly eCommerce Update.
    6. Personal Matters.
    7. Compensation Issues.
    8. Postal Rate Commission Opinion and Recommended Decision in 
Docket No. R2000-1, Omnibus Rate case.

Tuesday, November 14--8:30 a.m. (Open)

    1. Minutes of the Previous Meetings, September 22, and October 2-3, 
2000.
    2. Remarks of the Postmaster General/Chief Executive Officer.
    3. Quarterly Report on Service Performance.
    4. Fiscal Year 2001 Operating Budget.
    5. Capital Investment Plan.
    6. Fiscal Year 2001 Financing Plan.
    7. Tentative Agenda for the December 4-5, 2000, meeting in 
Washington, DC.

Tuesday, November 14--10 a.m. (Closed)

    1. Continuation of Monday's closed agenda.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: David G. Hunter, Secretary of the 
Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

David G. Hunter,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28413 Filed 11-1-00; 1:42 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M
The Hon orable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for th e 1 West ernDistrict of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition b y consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2773

___________ Kevin Lamont Evans, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the James Washington; J. D. Kaver; * Western District of Missouri JoAnn Mertens, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 3, 1998 Filed: May 27, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kevin Lamont Evans, a Missouri inmate, appeals from the final judgment e ntered in the District Court for

the Western District of Missouri granting summary judgment 1 to defendant prison o fficials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After a careful review of the record and the parties & submissions on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in its order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Re: Hexaflumuron Registration Review

Galen Dively to: Russell Wasem 01/30/2012 04:14 PM

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Hi Rusty,

As I explained on the phone, spiking the bait with a sports drink to 

enhance attractiveness to termites did raise some concern in my mind at 

my first look at this bait system. But after reviewing the in-ground and 

above ground products and their placement, I am convinced that bees 

would have no access to the bait, once the system is properly installed.

Galen Dively

On 1/30/2012 3:58 PM, Wasem.Russell@epamail.epa.gov wrote:

> Good Afternoon Galen,

>

> Thank you for your letter. Upon review, we are wondering whether the

> use of a sports drink to enhance bait attractiveness to termites was

> considered in your conclusion that the HexPro bait system "will pose no

> harm to Apis and non-Apis species"? Do you have any concerns about the

> use of a sports drink in this termite baiting systems increasing the

> attractiveness to pollinators?

>

> Thank you in advance for your assistance.

>

> Regards,

>

> Rusty____________

> __________

> Rusty Wasem / Chemical Review Manager

> Risk Management& Implementation Branch 1*

> Pesticide Re-evaluation Division* / Office of Pesticide Programs

> 703 / 305 6979

>

>

>

> From: Galen Dively<galen@umd.edu>

> To: Russell Wasem/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

> Date: 01/26/2012 05:50 PM

> Subject: Hexaflumuron Registration Review

>

>

>

> Dear Dr. Wasem,

>

> Attached is a letter expressing my professional opinion of the potential

>

> bee exposure of hexaflumuron in Hex-Pro Termite Bait Stations. Thanks.

>

> Galen

> (See attached file: Letter to Russell Wasem_EPA_HexPro Bait Station

> Review.pdf)
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3522 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3522

  To authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer for sale 
current group health insurance coverage in satisfaction of the minimum 
    essential health insurance coverage requirement, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2013

 Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer for sale 
current group health insurance coverage in satisfaction of the minimum 
    essential health insurance coverage requirement, 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 ``Employee Health Care Protection Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. IF YOU LIKE YOUR GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP IT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (including any amendment made by 
such Act or by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 
2010), a health insurance issuer that has in effect health insurance 
coverage in the group market on any date during 2013 may continue after 
such date to offer such coverage for sale during and after 2014 in such 
market outside of an Exchange established under section 1311 or 1321 of 
such Act (42 U.S.C. 18031, 18041).
    (b) Treatment as Grandfathered Health Plan in Satisfaction of 
Minimum Essential Coverage.--Health insurance coverage described in 
subsection (a) shall be treated as a grandfathered health plan for 
purposes of the amendment made by section 1501(b) of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                          EXHIBIT 11.1
                                                          ------------


STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER ORDINARY SHARE

                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)



 
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                    Three Months    Six Months
                                    Ending June 30  Ending June 30

                                    1997     1998    1997    1998
                                    ----     ----    ----    ----
<S>                                 <C>      <C>     <C>     <C> 

BASIC

Total weighed average ordinary 
 and ordinary equivalent
 Shares outstanding                 39,923   43,283  39,690  42,939
                                    ======   ======  ======  ======

Net income                           2,221    4,099   3,770  11,441
                                    ======   ======  ======  ======

Net income per Ordinary Share (1)   $ 0.06   $ 0.09  $ 0.09  $ 0.27
                                    ======   ======  ======  ======

DILUTED
Computation of ordinary and
 ordinary equivalent shares
 outstanding:

Weighted average ordinary
 shares outstanding                 39,923   43,283  39,690  42,939

Dilutive equivalent ordinary
 shares issuable upon
 exercise of options                 4,015    3,074   4,067   3,141

Total weighted average ordinary
 and ordinary equivalent shares
 outstanding                        43,938   46,357  43,757  46,080
                                    ======   ======  ======  ======

Net income                           2,221    4,099   3,770  11,441
                                    ======   ======  ======  ======

Net income per Ordinary Share (1)   $ 0.05   $ 0.09  $ 0.09  $ 0.25
                                    ======   ======  ======  ======
</TABLE> 

(1) On March 9, 1998, the Company effected a two-for-one split of its issued and
    outstanding ADSs. Subsequent thereto, the Company's shareholders approved a
    proposal at the Company's 1998 Annual General Meeting to subdivide each of
    the Ordinary Shares of IR37.5p into four Ordinary Shares of IR9.375p (the
    "Ordinary Share Split"). As a consequence of the Ordinary Share Split,
    effective May 22, 1998, each ADS represents and is exchangeable for one
    Ordinary Share. All share amounts in this exhibit give effect to the
    Ordinary Share Split.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2009, pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned Chief Financial Officer
of Omega Protein Corporation, certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  |  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Omega Protein Corporation.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 10, 2010



/s/ ROBERT W. STOCKTONRobert W. Stockton Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer


This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Omega Protein Corporation or the certifying officer for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Omega Protein Corporation and will be retained
by Omega Protein Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
.•.. ~· . . 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

COMPLIANCE WITH E.O. 12866 

Section 6(a)(3)(E) ofE.O. 12866 requires agencies to identify for the public, in 

a complete, clear, and simple manner, those changes in a regulatory action 

made at the suggestion or recommendation of the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget. 

Title of Rulemaking: Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for 

Air Carrier Operations NPRM 

Regulatory Identification Number: 2120-AJ67 

_ _ .X __ _ 

Attachment 

1 

OIRA did not review the rulemaking document. 

OIRA reviewed the rulemaking document, but did not 

suggest or recommend any changes. 

OIRA reviewed the rulemaking document, and we have 

documented the changes we made at OIRA's suggestion or 

recommendation in an attachment to this sheet. 
List of Changes to Initial Regulatory Evaluation Recommended by OMB 

1. We are now using a pre-statute baseline, as well as a post-statute baseline, in the analysis. 

2. We have included a table showing the incremental costs and benefits for each specific 

provision (Appendix 1). 

3. We have added a summary cost/benefit table and executive summary (unnumbered table, p. 

5). 

4. We have included cost and benefits estimates at a 3% discount rate (Appendix 2). 

5. We have added a discussion of the accidents that are driving the benefits ( Colgan/Buffalo, 

Corporate Air/Kirksville, AvJet, etc.) and how this rule could have prevented these accidents. 

6. We have included the following statement to begin the "Costs and Benefits" section: 

The proposed rule has costs that far exceed its benefits. However, the vast 

majority of these costs (approximately $55 million per year) are the result of the 

underlying statutory requirement that all pilots operating under part 121 have an 

ATP by August 2, 2013. If the FAA were not to use its authority to allow for 

academic credit, these projected costs would rise to more than $87 million per 

year." 

7. We have provided a list of other Airline Safety Act rules that are using the same accidents we 

are using for this rule. For each of those accidents, we gave the associated effectiveness rating of 

each rule.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

ANCHOR GLASS CONTAINER CORPORATION
STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       PERIOD FROM
                                                                    FEBRUARY 5, TO 1997
                                                   YEAR ENDED               TO              
                                                DECEMBER 31, 1998    DECEMBER 31, 1997
                                                -----------------    -----------------

<S>                                             <C>                 <C> 
Net loss applicable to common stock               $   (22,807)         $   (22,773)
Divided by:

Weighted average shares outstanding, plus           1,410,531            1,242,344
Weighted average warrants outstanding               3,044,935            1,958,804
                                                  -----------          -----------
                                                    4,455,466            3,201,148
                                                  -----------          -----------

Basic net loss per share                          $     (5.12)         $     (7.11)
                                                  ===========          ===========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ORBIT
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              20
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    20
<PP&E>                                             333
<DEPRECIATION>                                     310
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,806
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           360
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,052)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       114
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (861)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (861)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (861)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-22-00435-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,

 v.

EXIQUIO SALINAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 93rd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Peña

Order Per Curiam

The case is before the Court upon a joint motion to abate appeal, appellant’s 

unopposed motion for extension of time, and appellant’s motions to extend time to file 

appellant’s brief. The parties request abatement of this matter in order to effectuate the 

settlement agreement.
2

The Court, having reviewed the status of the case and the joint motion, is of the 

opinion that the cause should be abated pending the final settlement. Therefore, the joint

motion to abate is granted, and this matter is abated until April 3, 2023. The Court directs 

appellant to file, on or before April 3, 2023, either (1) a motion to reinstate the appeal, or 

(2) a motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to settlement.

Furthermore, the court denies as moot appellant’s previous motion to abate and 

motions for extension to time to file a brief. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

17th day of February, 2023.
#### BLAKELEY v. STATE.

No. 25017.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 6, 1950.

No attorneys for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Upon his plea of guilty before the jury to the charge of burglary, appellant was found guilty and assessed punishment at two years in the penitentiary.

The facts support the conviction.

No bills of exception appear in the record.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 20543

MARLON DANTRUCE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner

– Appellant ,

v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent

– Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:14

- CV

- 2098

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that Appellee Lorie Davis’s unopposed motion to cancel oral argument is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee Lorie Davis’s unopposed motion to waive the exhaustion requirement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3)

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 29, 2016 Lyl e W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-20543 Document: 00513817026 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2016No. 14

- 20543

2 with respect to those claims that were raised in Appellant Marlon Dantruce Williams’s state habeas application is GRAN TED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the district court’s judgment is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED to the district court to review Appellant Marlon Dantruce Williams’s federal habeas application on the merits with respect to those claims that were raised in Appellant’s state habeas application

. This is a full remand. We place no limit on the matters that the district court may address, as needed, and we express no view on what rulings that court should make. Case: 14-20543 Document: 00513817026 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2016