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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,600
<SECURITIES>                                    21,666
<RECEIVABLES>                                      269
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,866
<PP&E>                                           1,173
<DEPRECIATION>                                      86
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,327
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,519
<BONDS>                                          2,411
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,387
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    47,327
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,244
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  35
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,806)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,806)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,806)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Logan, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously modified *919on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant’s conviction of two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3]), counts 4 and 5 of the indictment, and one count of endangering the welfare of a child, count 8 of the indictment, must be reversed because the trial court erroneously permitted expert testimony regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome which related solely to proving that the child was sexually abused *(see, People v Duell,*163 AD2d 866; *People v Bowker,*203 Cal App 3d 385, 249 Cal Rptr 886). If there is a new trial on those counts of the indictment and should the People desire to have the child declared a vulnerable witness pursuant to CPL article 65, a new hearing should be conducted to determine whether the circumstances then existing warrant utilization of that statute *(see generally, People v Cintron, 75*NY2d 249).

In view of the foregoing, we do not address the remaining issues raised by defendant. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Doyle, J.—sexual abuse, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,387
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,197
<PP&E>                                         450,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 456,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,119,128
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   456,584
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  351,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (355,800)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (355,800)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.85
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          12,893
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,932
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,683)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,926
<PP&E>                                          57,243
<DEPRECIATION>                                (29,667)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 270,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          175,393
<BONDS>                                          5,505
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           152
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,942
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   270,455
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               210,886
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  201,464
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   453
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,709
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,272
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,437
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 14
- 00036
- CR JUSTIN RAY ROMO , Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012
- 1121
- C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Justin Ray Romo pleaded guilty to the offense of evading arrest or detention using a vehicle and pleaded true to an enhancement allegation. A jury thereafter assessed his punishment at four years’ imprisonment. In his sole issue, Romo contends that the judgment incorrectly recites that he was convicted of a second

- degree felony. The State concedes the error. The offense of evading arrest or detention using a vehicle is a third

- degree felony. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2014). TheRomo v. State Page 2

enhancement allegation does not change this. It merely enhances the punishment range
of the offense to that of a second

- degree felony without changing the felony degree of
the offense itself. See id. § 12.42(a), (f) (West Supp. 2014); Martin v. State , 405 S.W.3d 944,
949

- 50 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2013, no pet.). Accordingly, we sustain Romo’s sole issue and modify the judgment to reflect
conviction of a third

- degree felony. We affirm the judgment as modified.

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed as modified Opinion delivered and filed November 20, 2014 Do not publish [C R25]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         153,351
<SECURITIES>                                   100,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,845
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               318,459
<PP&E>                                       1,310,781
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,656,330
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,545
<BONDS>                                        935,690
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           225
<OTHER-SE>                                     264,662
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,656,330
<SALES>                                        276,773
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               276,773
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  187,996
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,071
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,706
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,546
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,160
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,160
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**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 Quarterly Report of Coinstar, Inc. (the“***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-Q***”), I, David W. Cole, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) TheForm 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: May 8, 2007
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

Jfyou make changes to the values in the table below. you must ensure the totals updale accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out t?fthe changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

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

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

Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Inspect 9.0 $765.00 1410 ~2. I 75 DO 52 Sll3 100.00 

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 s () .00 

i I $ 0.00 I $ 0.00 ' 

s 0.00 

I I $ 0.00 i $ () ()() : 'j) 0 00 

i $ 0.00 $ 0.00 : $ 0.00 

' 'j) 0.00 ' S> 0.00 : .) 0.00 

"i 0 00 '(, 0.00 's 0 00 

$ 0 00 \ 0 {)() i ~, 0 ()() 

~ 0.00 '!, o.ou : ::, n.uo 

I s 0 00 '!; 0 ()() -;-

'1> 0.00 

I ) () 00 b () 00 ~ () 0 ()() 

I '!; 0.00 ' .., (J.OI) s U.tJO 

I -~ () ()() s 0.00 ~ () .00 

I $ n oo ' 0.00 s (). ()() 

<;, 0.()(1 : '> 0.00 's 0.00 

i I s 0 (\() ., () 00 's ll.OO I I <;; 0.00 I .., 0 00 .., 0 0 ()() 

I I "i 0 00 " (1.00 '!; n.oo 

I s () 00 <;, 0 ()() '!) 0.00 

: I $ 0.00 i $ () ()() I s () .00 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $113,IOO 

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) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Splice Repair Lft 368 $31 ?80 00 $90,I29 '!) 121 409 00 

Side 

Splice Repair Rt 

368.0 ~n 1 ,280.oo 87241 c,; I IS.'<:! I 00 

Side 

Replace Spar 368.0 $ ~ 1,280.00 81764 '>I 13 .. 0 1-UHl 

s 0.00 ~ () {)() 

6 
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): 

Executive Order 12866: 

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

YES* D NO C8J 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ·-

YES* D NO C8J 

*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 C8J 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

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

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? • 1 

YES* D NO C8J 

*Explanation: 

DO NOT DELETE PAGE BREAK 

7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 DALLAS DIVISION 

BRAYLON RAY COULTER, § 

#10804686, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

V. § No. 3:22-CV-1655-N-BK 

 § 

MAJOR BEAMER, § 

 § 

Defendant. § 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. No objections were filed. The Court reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, 

and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate. 

SO ORDERED this 16TH day of September, 2022. 

____________________________________ 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-01655-N-BK Document 6 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 16
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 228 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 228

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 13, 1993

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
To approve the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to 
                        the products of Romania.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves the 
extension of nondiscriminatory treatment with respect to the products 
of Romania transmitted by the President to the Congress on July 2, 
1993.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 12, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CITY OF EL PASO,

Appellant,

v.

LUIS R. VARELA,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00116-CV

Appeal from the

327th Judicial District Court

Of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2021DCV1549)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

judgment. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the cause for further 

proceedings consistent with this Court’s opinion. We further order that Appellant recover from 

Appellee all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
p. 1 

33~~a~ 

~r~-Gbl~, 

DuPont Chemicals and Fluoroproducts 

Chambers Works 

Deepwater, NJ 08023 

December 17, 2010 

Document Control Office 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East 

Room 6428 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2003 - 0012 

DuPont Chambers Works NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005100 

PFOA Data Submittal - Outfall DSN662 Weekly Grab Samples 

September / October 2010 Sample Data 

Dear Document Control Office : 

As per Part IV, Section G.5 .a of the NJPDES permit, we are submitting a summary of PFOA 

analytical results for the weekly grab samples taken at internal outfall DSN662A to NJDEP on a 

monthly basis. Per your request, we are sending you a paper and electronic copy of the report for 

samples taken during September and October 2010 . We will continue to send you the reports 

each month. 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (856) 540-3015. 

Sincerely, 

Joe Greenfield 

SHE Consultant - Environmental 

DuPont Chambers Works 

Enclosures 

CONTAINS NO CE?1 
Copies to: 

Director, Chemical Control Division 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

EPA East 

Room 4146 

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Ms. Susan Rosenwinkel (cover letter only) 

Principal Environmental Engineer 

NJDEP Division of Water Quality 

Bureau of Point Source Permitting - Region 2 

401 E. State Street 

P.O . Box 029 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0029
Case 1:22-cr-00012-H-BU Document 31 Filed 05/26/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 68
Case 1:22-cr-00012-H-BU Document 31 Filed 05/26/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 69
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00053-Z-BR

§

ROCKY DANIEL FLICK (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

ROCKY DANIEL FLICK (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), 

has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the Indictment. After 

cautioning and examining ROCKY DANIEL FLICK (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, 

I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that ROCKY DANIEL FLICK (1) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) -

POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE and have sentence imposed accordingly. After 

being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: September 19, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00053-Z-BR Document 78 Filed 09/19/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 186
February 4, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ALEXSANDRA P. DANILV O N/K/A ALEXANDRA P. SCHAEFER , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00020

- CV V.

JUERGEN A. SCHAEFER , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on November 19, 2013. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that each party shall p ay its costs by reason of this appeal. We further order that mandate be issued immediately. We further order this decision certified below for observance.