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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BWAY
CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1999             OCT-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-05-1999             SEP-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-05-1999             JUL-05-1999
<CASH>                                           4,185                   4,185
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,764                  55,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                       586                     586
<INVENTORY>                                     49,628                  49,628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,620                 131,620
<PP&E>                                         187,109                 187,109
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,992                  42,992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 368,881                 368,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           91,655                  91,655
<BONDS>                                        168,300                 168,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            99                      99
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,945                  82,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   368,881                 368,881
<SALES>                                        123,109                 349,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,109                 349,631
<CGS>                                          106,857                 298,662
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,846                 338,210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (69)                   (251)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,549                  10,738
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,263                  11,421
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,387                   4,854
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,876                   6,567
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,876                   6,567
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .20                     .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20                     .69


</TABLE>
U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.
        Here's how you know
      Here's how you know**Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
      **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** (
            A locked padlock
            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Menu

      
        close

            
            
                                              About
          Charter
          Legislation
          Members
          Meetings
          Reports & Resources

                            
                                About
          Contact Us
                  Share
FacebookXLinkedInRedditPinterestEmail Home
 Monday, May 23, 2011 Meeting May 23, 2011
Office of Justice Programs
810 7th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20531
2:30-5:00 p.m.

AgendaMeeting SummaryMeeting Attendance

May 23, 2011 Meeting Materials

**Presenter/Member Bios:**

***School Discipline, Juvenile Justice and Prevention***

Elizabeth Albro
	Michael Thompson
	Christopher Boccanfuso
	Kristin Anderson Moore
	Farhad Asghar***Casey Family Programs Fellows***

Susan Badeau
	Annie Blackledge
	Todd Shenk**Presentations Handouts:**

Breaking Schools' Rules: Justice Center Report
	Child Trends - Multiple Responses, Promising Results: Evidence Based, Non-Punitive Alternatives to Zero Tolerance
	Child Trends - Research-to-Results Brief
	Liberty Leads - The Bank Street Center for Leadership and College Prep**Legislative and Program Updates:**

HHS Announcements
	HUD News - Father's Day 2011
	National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention
	Center for Juvenile Justice Reform (Working Across Systems of Care) Georgetown University: Safety, Fairness, Stability: Repositioning Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare to Engage families and Communities
  
Date Published: May 23, 2011
 Top

      Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

        
        
                        Facebook
          
                      X
          
                      YouTube
  

      Secondary Footer link menu
            Accessibility
              Plain Language
              Privacy Policy
              Legal Policies and Disclaimer
              No FEAR Act
              Freedom of Information Act
              USA.gov
              Justice.gov
Case 4:22-cr-00304-Y Document 5 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 4
Case 4:22-cr-00304-Y Document 5 Filed 10/11/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 5
# AGENCY:

 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 

# ACTION:

 Final rule; correction. 

# SUMMARY:

                         This document contains corrections to the emergency interim rule to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid the likelihood that the pollock fisheries off Alaska will jeopardize the continued existence of the western population of Steller sea lions or adversely modify their critical habitat that was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on January 25, 2000.                     

# DATES:

 Effective February 4, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Kent Lind, 907-586-7650. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                     An emergency interim rule was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 25, 2000 (65 FR 3892), implementing reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid the likelihood that the pollock fisheries off Alaska will jeopardize the continued existence of the western population of Steller sea lions or adversely modify their critical habitat.                 

## Correction 

# PART 679—[CORRECTED] 

On page 3902, in Table 20 to 50 CFR part 679, titled Steller Sea Lion Protection Areas in the Aleutian Islands Subarea: 

In the entry for “Seguam Island”, in the fifth column of the table, remove the Longitude “172 33.06 W”, and add in its place “172 33.60 W”. 

Dated: February 3, 2000. 

Penelope D. Dalton, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 00-3004 Filed 2-4-00; 4:46 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SONYA CHAPMAN, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

V. § No. 3:22-CV-2188-D-BN

§

ADT LLC, §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER OF RE-REFERENCE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a

recommendation in this case on February 21, 2023. Plaintiff filed objections on

May 1, 2023 and June 12, 2023. The objections also appear to include motions.

Although plaintiff’s pleadings are still largely conclusory, her June 12, 2023

filings (ECF Nos. 19 and 20)—particularly when viewed with the liberality required

of pro se pleadings—arguably state at least one plausible discrimination claim. 

And even though this pleading purports to be plaintiff’s objections to the findings,

conclusions, and recommendation of the magistrate judge, it arguably should be

treated as a second amended complaint.

Case 3:22-cv-02188-D-BN Document 22 Filed 07/12/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 327
Accordingly, the court re-refers this case to the United States Magistrate

Judge for further screening procedures and, if appropriate, orders for issuance and

service of process.

SO ORDERED.

July 12, 2023.

_________________________________

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER

SENIOR JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-02188-D-BN Document 22 Filed 07/12/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 328
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:22-cv-01535-E Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 6
 

INDEX OF ALL DOCUMENTS FILED IN STATE COURT PAGE SOLO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

KENNETH MAGGIO & DARCY 

MAGGIO,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

LIBERTY INSURANCE 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-cv-01535

EXHIBIT A

INDEX OF ALL DOCUMENTS FILED IN STATE COURT

Pursuant to Local Rule 81.1(a)(4)(A), Defendant files the following index of all 

documents filed in state court in support of its Notice of Removal:

EXHIBIT C: Plaintiffs’ Original Petition (Filed 05/25/22)

EXHIBIT C-1: Citation Issued to Liberty Insurance Corporation (Issued 05/25/22))

EXHIBIT C-2: Plaintiffs’ Jury Demand 

EXHIBIT C-3- Affidavit of Service (Filed 06/21/22) 

EXHIBIT C-4 Liberty’s Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original Petition (Filed 07/07//22)

Case 3:22-cv-01535-E Document 1-1 Filed 07/15/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 7
Case 4:22-mj-00734-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1
Case 4:22-mj-00734-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2
Case 4:22-mj-00734-BJ Document 1 Filed 09/06/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 3
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 68986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29207]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-3583-000]


Arizona Independent Scheduling Administrator Association; Notice 
of Filings

November 8, 2000.
    On October 5, 2000, by delegated authority, a deficiency letter in 
the instant proceeding determined that Arizona Independent Scheduling 
Administrator Association's filing in the instant proceeding was 
deficient, pending submission by Arizona Public Service (APS) and 
Tucson Electric Power Company (Tucson) of modifications in their own 
open access transmission tariffs. APS made such a filing, in Docket No. 
ER01-173-000, on October 20, 2000. Tucson filed modifications to its 
tariff, as revised, in Docket No. ER01-208-000, on October 25, 2000. As 
a consequence, the date for the submission of comments, protests, and 
interventions in Docket No. ER00-3583-000 will be November 15, 2000. 
The comment dates for Docket Nos. ER01-173-000 and ER01-208-000 remain 
November 8, 2000 and November 15, 2000, respectively.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filings should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
and protests should be filed on or before the above-mentioned dates. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with 
the Commission and are available for public inspection. These filings 
may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may 
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29207 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30358]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-414-000]


Southern California Edison Company; Notice of Filing

November 22, 2000.

    Take notice that on November 13, 2000, Southern California Edison 
Company (SCE) tendered for filing the Agreement For Interconnection 
Service (Agreement), between SCE and Harbor Cogeneration Company 
(Harbor).
    The Agreement specifies the terms and conditions under which SCE 
will interconnect Harbor's 80,000 kW generating facility with SCE's 
Harborgen Substation pursuant to SCE's Transmission Owner Tariff.
    Copies of this filing were served upon the Public Utilities 
Commission of the State of California and all interested parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or December 4, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30358 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Agenda -- May 2005 Refunding

Treasury Dealer Meetings April 28-29, 2005

Dealer ___________________

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 5:00 p.m. on 

Wednesday, April 27 to debt.management@do.treas.gov. Even if you are not scheduled to meet 

with Treasury officials this quarter, your responses are still appreciated. 

I. Borrowing Estimates Central

Estimate

Range that would 

not surprise you

April-June

 Ending Cash Balance

July-September

 Ending Cash Balance

II. Budget Deficit Estimates

FY2005

FY2006

III. Quarterly Note Issuance

 3-year note

 5-year note

 10-year note

Avg. 2-year note, May - Jul

Avg. 5-year note, Jun - Jul

10-year reopening

10-year TIPS

20-year TIPS reopening

IV. Discussion Topics

• Given your assessments of the April 15 tax receipts and the Administration’s budget 

proposals, do you believe the current financing schedule is well-suited to meet Treasury’s 

financing needs going forward? If not, please elaborate on changes that you believe are 

needed. 

• Last year at this time, Treasury announced the addition of the 5-year and 20-year maturities 

to its TIPS program. How has the new TIPS issuance contributed to the growth and 

development of the TIPS market? 

• Please describe any trends in the Treasury market that you believe are significant to Treasury 

as an issuer.
#### BARNES v. STATE.

No. 21236.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 18, 1940.

Clarke Wills, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information with having violated the Mediical Practice Act. Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 4495 et seq. He was convicted of said offense and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the county jail for a period of fifteen days and by a fine of $500.

The only question presented by the record which we deem necessary to discuss is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the allegations in the complaint and information. It was charged in the complaint, and- the averments in the information are identical with those in the complaint, that appellant resided in Mason County; that he had and maintained an office in and had designated a place in said county where he treated and prescribed for patients without having first registered in the office of the District Clerk of Mason County a certificate issued by the State Board of Medical Examiners evidencing his right to practice medicine, etc. Consequently, the State was required by evidence to support and sustain these allegations. The record not only fails to show that appellant resided in Mason County, but, on the contrary, it shows that he resided in Dallas County; nor is there any evidence which showed that he had an office in of had designated a place in *897Mason County where he met, treated or prescribed for patients. It is true that there is some evidence showing that appellant came to Mason County at the request of Mr. Kothmann, the patient, and met him at the place designated by Koth-mann and treated him, but there is no evidence from any source that appellant ever designated a place to meet patients for the purpose of treating, prescribing for or advising with them. Hence the proof fails to meet the allegations in the complaint and information. Therefore, we are constrained to reverse the judgment of the trial court and to remand the cause, and it is so ordered.

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.'
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                          MIDCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC.
 
        EXHIBIT 11.1  STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
 
                                                       Three months                 Nine months
                                                          ended                        ended
                                                       September 30,                September 30,
                                                   --------------------         -------------------
(In thousands, except per share data)                1997        1996             1997       1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                <C>          <C>             <C>        <C> 
Net loss                                           ($23,589)   ($18,259)        ($69,549)  ($77,420)
                                                   --------    --------         --------   --------
Weighted average shares outstanding                  15,125      15,681           15,438     15,442
                                                   --------    --------         --------   --------
Net loss per share                                   ($1.56)     ($1.16)          ($4.51)    ($5.01)
                                                   --------    --------         --------   --------

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Santagata, J.), rendered September 11, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.
# Additive Manufacturing: Shaping the Sustainment Battlespace

/ Published Feb. 12, 2019
"Additive Manufacturing: Shaping the Sustainment Battlespace"
US ONCOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC. AND US ONCOLOGY, INC.



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 Quarterly Report of US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, 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 Report), I, Richard P. McCook, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Richard P. McCook                                                                                   
|Richard P. McCook                                                                                       
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc.
|                                                                                                        
|May 7, 2007
#### LANCASTER v. STATE.

No. 21426.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 5, 1941.

W. H. Crunk and C. C. McKinney, both of Cooper, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for unlawfully transporting whisky in a dry area and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $500. .

It was charged in the complaint and information that Delta County was a dry area by virtue of an election held within and for said county by the qualified electors to determine whether or not the sale of intoxicating liquor should be prohibited there; that said election was held on the 16th day of October, 1897, and resulted in favor of prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquor within said county, etc.

Appellant’s first complaint is that the trial court, at the conclusion of the testimony, declined to give to the jury his special requested instruction to return a verdict of not guilty. We are of the opinion that he was entitled to such an instruction because the testimony shows that if appellant transported any whisky he did so in Fannin County near the line between Fannin and Delta Counties. The trial court no doubt realized that the evidence failed to show that appellant ever entered Delta County while engaged in the transportation of whisky at the time in question, because he instructed the jury that if they believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, in Delta County, or within four hundred yards of the boundary line of said county, transported whisky, to find Him guilty. The court evidently was of the opinion that Article 190, C.C.P. applied to cases of this nature and that is why he gave said article in his charge to the jury. The article mentioned is merely a venue statute and cannot transform a legal act into an illegal one. It is obvious that the sale or transportation of intoxicating liquor in a wet area, although within four hundred yards of a dry area, would not constitute an offense. Since the sale or transportation of the whisky was presumptively legal, the evidence was insufficient to authorize a conviction, and the charge of the court was also erroneous. See Owens v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 297, 135 S.W.2d 997.

For the reasons indicated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause 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.