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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT APRIL 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE
MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                         114,249
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               21,047,222
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (460,898)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,505,951
<PP&E>                                       2,377,194
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,511,586)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,734,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,116,385
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        80,214
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,152,805
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,734,687
<SALES>                                      3,595,202
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,595,202
<CGS>                                        1,566,407
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  666,674
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,231)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (120,243)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,239,647
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (513,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            726,647
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   726,647
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 193 ) IV-E-6

7 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:57

PM Sheet 193 of 242P. 2 ^-Vl-mm-l. 

### X2^^SL-Cr7 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5
OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N 

## SE P 9198 8
MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Meeting Wit h Intec h o n Onboar d Refueling Contro l

Issue s FROM : TO : THRU : Kare n Lostoski , Mechanica l Enginee r '"K'o^-< .

Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h Publi c Docke t A-87-1 1 Joh n F . Anderson , Senio r Projec t Manage r Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h dT">+»3~*wL <

O n Augus t 17 , 198 8 representative s o f Intec h an d Dowtyme t wit h EP

Arepresentative s t o discus s th e onboar d refueling proposa l an

d the relate d issue s o f the activate d carbo n caniste r an

d fue l tan

k bladders . Alis t o f attendee s i s attached . A n alternativ e t o carbo n canisters , namel ycarbo n cloth , wa s presente d b

yIntech a s a possibilit yfor us e in the onboar d system . Intec h expect s tha t the carbo n clot h wil l hav e a muc h highe r working capacit y(grams HC/volume ) than granulate d activate d carbon . I f thi s i s th e case , th

e carbo n clot h coul d significantl ydecreas e the necessarysiz e o f th e canister . Automotiv e manufacturer s have state d tha t th e caniste r volume necessaryt o stor e refuelin g vapor s represent s a packaging problem . Asampl e o f th e carbo n clot h wil l b e sen t t o the EP

A fo r futur e testing . Th e fue l bladde r a s a mean s o f controlling vapo r generatio n wa s als o discussed . Dowtywoul d b e intereste d in manufacturing bladders . Issue s dealing wit h tan k bladder s wer e discussed . Attachmen tP. 3

Attendanc e Lis t EPA / Intec h Meeting Augus t 17 , 198 8
Jea n Schwendema n EP A Kare n Lostosk i EP A Graha mO'Conno r Intec h Barr yShear s Dowt y

6311 W
#### Crules R. CHEEK, Trustee In Bankruptcy *of*Great Western Furniture Mfg. Co., a Corporation, Bankrupt, v. Alvin HOROWITZ.

No. 9583.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Aug. 5, 1940.

Samuel A. Miller, Walter G. Danielson, and Bertram H. Ross, all of Los Angeles, Cal, for appellant.

Fred Horowitz and P. N. McCloskey, both of Los Angeles, Cal, for appellee.

Before DENMAN, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On stipulation of counsel for respective parties, and good cause therefor appearing, ordered appeal dismissed, that a decree be filed and entered accordingly, and mandate issued forthwith.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                         5
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                    OCT-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                     26,172
<SECURITIES>                                               13,167
<RECEIVABLES>                                             286,075
<ALLOWANCES>                                               16,866
<INVENTORY>                                               287,969
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          631,785
<PP&E>                                                  1,099,606
<DEPRECIATION>                                            487,739
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          1,351,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     242,898
<BONDS>                                                   865,980
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                      689
<OTHER-SE>                                                 94,086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            1,351,600
<SALES>                                                 1,620,247
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        1,620,247
<CGS>                                                   1,434,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           1,434,867
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          546,965
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            4,380
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         66,264
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (548,648)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              (21,676)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (526,972)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (526,972)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (10.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (10.12)





</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 24, 2023

No. 04-23-00510-CR

Michael Adam KOZITZKI,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CR-12258

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with our memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on May 24, 2023.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of May, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
**The Agenda**

**Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention**

**Quarterly Meeting**

**Monday, July 28, 2014**

**U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs**

**810 Seventh Street, NW, 3rd Floor Conference Center, Washington, DC 20531**

****

**10:00-10:15 am 	Welcome, Opening Remarks, and Introductions**

*Tony West, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)*

**

*Karol Mason, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)*

*Roy Austin, Deputy Assistant to the President for Urban Affairs, Justice, and Opportunity, The White House*

******

*Robert Listenbee, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and*

*Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), DOJ, Vice Chair, Coordinating Council*

**10:15-11:50 am	Setting a New Vision for Juvenile Reentry:  Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Youth Outcomes**

****

*****Council Member and Invited Expert Discussion*

**

*Topics Addressed*

· *OJJDP Juvenile Reentry Strategic Plan*

· *Promoting efforts by states to track youth outcomes*

· *Research findings on what works to improve youth outcomes*

· *Assessing and reforming state policies and practices*

· *Federal efforts to reduce barriers to successful reentry for juveniles*

· *Evaluating the impact of diversion and reentry initiatives*

****

**11:50-11:55 am	Council Member Announcements**

**11:55 am-12:00 pm	Meeting Adjournment**

*Robert Listenbee, Administrator, OJJDP, Council Vice-Chair*****

# image1.jpeg
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31130]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 93

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0393; FRL-9499-1]
RIN 2060-AR03

Transportation Conformity Rule: MOVES Regional Grace Period 
Extension

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Because EPA received adverse comments, we are withdrawing the 
direct final rule extending the MOVES Regional Grace Period, published 
on October 13, 2011. The direct final rule would have extended the 
grace period to March 2013, before the Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 
model (currently MOVES2010a) is required for regional emissions 
analyses for transportation conformity determinations (``regional 
conformity analyses'').

DATES: Effective December 5, 2011, EPA withdraws the direct final rule 
published at 76 FR 63554, on October 13, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meg Patulski, State Measures and 
Transportation Planning Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: (734) 214-
4842; fax number: (734) 214-4052; email address: patulski.meg@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because EPA received adverse comments, we 
are withdrawing the direct final rule for extending the MOVES regional 
conformity grace period, published on October 13, 2011 (76 FR 63554). 
We stated in that direct final rule that if we received adverse 
comments, the direct final rule would not take effect and we would 
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register. We subsequently 
received adverse comments on that direct final rule. We will address 
those comments in a subsequent final action, which will be based on the 
parallel proposed rule also published on October 13, 2011 (76 FR 
63575). As stated in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed 
rule, we will not institute a second comment period on this action.

    Dated: November 29, 2011.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation.

    Accordingly, the amendments to the rule published on October 13, 
2011 (76 FR 63554) are withdrawn as of December 5, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2011-31130 Filed 12-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            Joint Forces Staff College
                Joint Forces Staff College
        Search
                    Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                        Search
                Search Joint Forces Staff College:
                    Search
    Home

    Coronavirus

    About 
        Overview

    College Leadership

    College Chaplain

    Contact Information

    Denton Learning Center

    Employment

    History

    Institutional Research

    JFSC Faculty

    Women, Peace, and Security (WPS)

    Academics
    
        Accreditation

    Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    Joint and Combined Warfighting School (JCWS)
        
        Program Description

    Prerequisites

    Reporting Instructions

    Schedule

    JCWS Hybrid (JCWS-H)

    JCWS Satellite (JCWS-S)

    Joint Information School (JIS)
        
        C4I Division

    Information Division

    Joint Transition Course (JTC)

    International Fellows
        
        Incoming Fellows

    Programs

    Alumni

    Contact Us

    Senior Fellows Program

    Libraries

    Faculty Resources

    Students
    
        All Course Schedules

    Incoming Students

    NDU Academic Policies

    Security Manager/SSO

    Uniform Policy

    Registrar

    Media
    
        Campaigning Journals
        
        About Us

    Issues & Articles

    Submissions

    Masthead

    News

    Commentary  News Tag:
  Feb. 14, 2019 The Challenge of the Sole Superpower in the Postmodern World Order JFSC Faculty with Joint Advanced Warfighting School, National Defense University, Dr. Keith D. Dickson published "The Challenge of the Sole Superpower in the Postmodern World Order" in the Marine Corps University Journal. Published: MCUJ vol. 9, no. 2, Fall 2018.
 Feb. 13, 2019 George Washington’s 1781 Campaign Design Revealed JFSC Faculty, Pat Hannum published "George Washington’s 1781 Campaign Design Revealed" in Journal of the American Revolution.
 DoD Link Disclaimer
   DoD Annual Performance Plans
   NDU FOIA RequestsDoD Privacy Policy
   DoD Plain Writing
   NDU System of Records NoticeDoD Open Government
   DoD Information Quality
   NDU Privacy PolicyDoD Privacy Program
   DoD Section 508
   NDU Privacy ProgramDoD No FEAR Act
   USA.gov
   NDU.edu Site Map
                    Joint Forces Staff College
   7800 Hampton Blvd.
   Norfolk, VA 23511-1702

   Contact JFSC

   Report JFSC Website Issues
   or Suggestion for Improvement

   SAPR Resources
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7277

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DERRICK GREEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting

by designation. (CR-93-180-S, CA-97-1352-HNM)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 7, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Green, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Slaymaker Sale, Assistant

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

June 17, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on June 18, 1998. Pursuant to Rules 58

and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date

that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Green, Nos. CR-93-180-S;

CA-97-1352-HNM (D. Md. Jun. 18, 1998).* We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### BROWN v. STATE.

No. 21075.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 22, 1940.

Art Schlofman, of Dalhart, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of driving an automobile while intoxicated, and by the jury fined $50 and sentenced to confinement in the county jail for forty-five days.

We find no statement of. facts in the record. We do find a motion to quash the indictment because it is alleged that the same is duplicitous ’ in that it charges the commission of two offenses in one count. We do not think the same subject to such objection. It charges in substance that appellant while intoxicated and while under the influence of intoxicating liquor drove and operated an automobile upon a public highway, etc. We gather’that appellant’s objection to this count in the indictment is based upon the use of the conjunctive “and” instead of the disjunctive “or”, the latter of which being contained in Art. 802, P.C., Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 802, denouncing this offense.

In Lewellen v. State, 54 Tex.Cr.R. 640, 114 S.W. 1179; Harris v. State, 58 Tex.Cr.R. 523, 126 S.W. 890; Canterberry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 44 S.W. 522; Hunter v. State, 73 Tex.Cr.R. 459, 166 S.W. 164; Evage v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 318, 125 S.W.2d 295, also Branch’s Penal Code, p. 556, Sec. 967, and many other cases there cited, it has been held: "It is a well-settled rule, in regard to this *450character of pleading, that where the statute makes two or more distinct acts connected with the same .transaction indictable, and the pleader undertakes to charge more than one of the means found in the statute, these must be pleaded, con-junctively, although they may be stated in the alternative or disjunctively in the statute.” Lewellen v. State, supra.

We think the indictment presents a proper pleading.

We find no error presented in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
(December 31, 1990)

#### Ernest Augustus, Jr., Appellant, v Latchu Mahadeo, Respondent.

In an action for partition of certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.), dated June 16, 1988, which denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

On February 23, 1983, the plaintiff Ernest Augustus, Jr., and his brother-in-law Latchu Mahadeo acquired title to a multiple dwelling in Brooklyn as tenants in common. Five years later, the plaintiff commenced this action for partition of the subject premises, alleging that his relationship with the *659defendant Mahadeo had deteriorated to the point where they no longer spoke to each other, and that the defendant had abandoned the management of the premises to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff subsequently moved for summary judgment, contending that the parties could neither cooperate in the management of the premises, nor agree upon proposals to buy out each other’s interest or sell to a third party. In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the defendant countered by alleging that the parties had orally agreed to treat the plaintiffs contributions towards the purchase price of the premises as a loan, and that the plaintiffs name had simply been placed upon the deed to reflect a security interest in the premises. This contention was refuted by the affidavit of the attorney who represented both parties when they originally took title that "I have never permitted a client to hold title as a security interest.” The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment without explanation. We reverse.

When the moving party has demonstrated an entitlement to summary judgment, the party opposing the motion must demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action, or tender an acceptable excuse for his failure to do so *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). At bar, however, the defendant has failed to controvert the plaintiffs allegation that the parties are unable to cooperate with each other in the management of their property. Since the defendant has failed to submit any evidentiary proof which raises a triable issue of fact as to the plaintiffs right to partition, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment should be granted *(see, Mason v Mason,*154 AD2d 515).

Accordingly, the action is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a determination of the right, share, or interest of each party in the premises pursuant to RPAPL 915. Since this action is both statutory and equitable in nature, an accounting of the income and expenses of the subject property is necessary, and should be conducted before entry of any judgment in the action *(see, McVicker v Sarma,*163 AD2d 721). Eiber, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Union Calendar No. 79

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1347

[Report No. 103–144]

A BILL

To modify the boundary of Hot Springs National

Park.

JUNE 21, 1993

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
IB

Union Calendar No. 79

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1347

[Report No. 103–144]

To modify the boundary of Hot Springs National Park.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 16, 1993

Mr. DICKEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Natural Resources

JUNE 21, 1993

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To modify the boundary of Hot Springs National Park.

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

3 That the boundary of Hot Springs National Park is modi4 fied as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Proposed Boundary

5 Map’’, numbered 128/80015, and dated August 5, 1985.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Mateo, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Belfi, J.), rendered September 5, 1989, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon our review of the minutes of the plea proceedings, we conclude that the defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary and that the allocution was factually sufficient *(see, People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666). We further find that, contrary to the defendant’s contentions on appeal, the defense of agency was not implicated in his factual recitation. Accordingly, there was no duty for the court to make any further inquiries in order to ensure that the defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary *(see, People v Gaither,*153 AD2d 587). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.