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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,789,294
<SECURITIES>                                31,566,526
<RECEIVABLES>                                  163,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,952,976
<PP&E>                                      34,617,441
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,385,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              60,940,546
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,084,440
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,106,106
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                60,940,546
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,838,839
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,080,604
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,758,235
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,758,235
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,758,235
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31052]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6912-3]


ILCO Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency is proposing 
to enter into two settlement agreements with a total of 45 de-minimis 
parties for response costs pursuant to section 122(g) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) regarding the Interstate Lead Company (ILCO) Superfund Site 
located in Leeds, Alabama. EPA will consider public comments on the 
proposed settlements for thirty (30) days. EPA may withdraw from or 
modify the proposed settlements should such comments disclose facts or 
considerations which indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, 
improper or inadequate. Copies of the proposed settlements are 
available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. EPA, Region 4 (WMD-PSB), 
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, 
Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887.
    Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor on or before 
January 5, 2001.

    Dated: November 20, 2000.
Anita Davis,
Acting Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management 
Division.
[FR Doc. 00-31052 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-1694

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Allen Brooks, Jr.

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

____________ 

Submitted: August 21, 2023

Filed: October 18, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM

Allen Brooks, Jr., was charged with violating the Sex Offender Registration 

and Notification Act (“SORNA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)(3), after he failed to notify 

local law enforcement in Missouri within three days of moving into the jurisdiction. 
-2- 

Brooks entered a conditional guilty plea, and the district court1 sentenced him to 33 

months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a 20-year term of supervised release. 

Prior to pleading guilty, Brooks moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that

(1) SORNA impermissibly delegates legislative authority to the Attorney General 

when it authorizes him to decide whether the statute applies to individuals convicted 

of a sex offense prior to its enactment; and, (2) SORNA is an improper exercise of 

Congress’ Commerce Clause powers. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 1 (Legislative Power 

Vested in Congress); id. at § 8, cl. 3 (Regulation of Commerce). Brooks concedes 

that his arguments are barred by existing precedent and the district court denied the 

motion. Brooks appeals raising the same grounds, which we review de novo. See

United States v. Anderson, 771 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (8th Cir. 2014) (we review de 

novo a defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of a statute and the denial of a 

motion to dismiss the indictment).

 In Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 2116, 2129 (2019), a 

plurality of the Supreme Court held that SORNA’s limited delegation of authority 

as applied to pre-Act offenders was not impermissible. See also United States v. 

Kuehl, 706 F.3d 917, 920 (8th Cir. 2013) (“We conclude that SORNA provides the 

Attorney General with an intelligible principle, and is a valid delegation of 

legislative authority.”). In United States v. May, 535 F.3d 912, 921-22 (8th Cir. 

2008), we held SORNA’s criminal penalties are a valid exercise of the Commerce 

Clause. See also Anderson, 771 F.3d at 1069-71. 

 We are bound by these precedents, and we affirm. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for 

the Eastern District of Missouri.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 07-50452

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

v. CR-07-00075-SGL  Central District of HUGO ARMANDO LOMELI-MENCES,

California, Defendant-Appellant.

Riverside

ORDER 

Filed September 30, 2009

Before: Harry Pregerson, Susan P. Graber, and

Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The opinion filed on May 28, 2009, and published at 567

F.3d 501, is withdrawn. It may not be cited as precedent by

or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit. The

opinion is replaced by the memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this order.

With the filing of the memorandum disposition, the petition

for panel rehearing is DENIED. No further petitions for

rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be entertained.

14035
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.
EXHIBIT
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO** **18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ronco Corporation (the
“Company”) for period from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul
      Kabashima, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.







October
      XX, 2006




/s/
      Paul
      Kabashima




Paul
      Kabashima


Chief
      Executive Officer
(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 results of operations of the Company.
 Date: August 9, 2010
    By:
    /s/ William C. StoneWilliam C. StoneChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)Date: August 9, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Patrick J. PedontiPatrick J. PedontiSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### NABORS v. STATE.

No. 19931.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 16, 1938.

W. T. Locke, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

*346MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Drunkenness in a public place is the offense ; penalty assessed at a fine of $45.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged in the complaint and information, both of which appear regular and properly presented. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception.

No error has been perceived or pointed out.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 1999
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                4618
<SECURITIES>                                          9039
<RECEIVABLES>                                        28141
<ALLOWANCES>                                           528
<INVENTORY>                                          32572
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     77424
<PP&E>                                               39378
<DEPRECIATION>                                       24421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      110257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                35027
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                           8236
<COMMON>                                                77
<OTHER-SE>                                           55087
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        110257
<SALES>                                              26586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      1846
<CGS>                                                14313
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        14313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     16541
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     239
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (2422)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (727)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (1695)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (1695)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.23)



</TABLE>
#### METCALF v. STATE.

No. 20023.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 14, 1938.

No appearance for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for perjury; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

The indictment appears regular. The record is before this court without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

The appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged in the indictment and waived a jury upon the trial of the case.

Nothing has been perceived in the record which would authorize a reversal of the conviction. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                            5448
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              99
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 11185
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       5313
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                          79819
<ALLOWANCE>                                      (825)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  104249
<DEPOSITS>                                       86626
<SHORT-TERM>                                       300
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2272
<LONG-TERM>                                       4000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                       11009
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  104249
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   3629
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  192
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  3821
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1645
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1694
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2127
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       97
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1787
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    825
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         825
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       502
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.88
<LOANS-NON>                                        532
<LOANS-PAST>                                       460
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   728
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  825
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               565
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            260
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                                                                                

              INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE

                                        

JetFax, Inc.:


  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-39815 on Form S-8 of our report dated January 30, 1998 (February 23, 1998 as
to the last sentence of Note 6), appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
JetFax, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1997.

  Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our
aforementioned report also included the financial statement schedule of JetFax,
Inc., listed in Item 14(a). This financial statement schedule is the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


San Jose, California

March 31, 1998

                                                                  Please Initial
#### PHLEGM v. STATE.

No. 19963.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 12, 1938.

Wm. McMurray, of Cold Springs, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is burglary ; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

No statement of facts is brought forward. We are unable to appraise appellant’s exceptions to the charge of the court in the absence of a statement of facts.

The judgment is affirmed.

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>   1
                 TANDY BRANDS ACCESSORIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


EXHIBIT (21):  SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


21.1  List of subsidiaries

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiaries of                             State or Other Jurisdiction of              Names Under Which Such
the Registrant                              Incorporation or Organization               Subsidiaries Do Business
--------------                              -----------------------------               ------------------------

<S>                                         <C>                                         <C>
Accessory Design Group, Inc.                A Delaware Corporation                      Accessory Design Group, Inc.
                                                                                        Accessory Design Group

TBAC-Prince Gardner, Inc.                   A Delaware Corporation                      TBAC-Prince Gardner, Inc.
                                                                                        Prince Gardner

TBAC-AIS, Inc.                              A Delaware Corporation                      TBAC-AIS, Inc.

H.A. Sheldon Canada Ltd.                    A Canadian Corporation                      1088258 Ontario, Inc.
                                                                                        H.A. Sheldon Canada Ltd.

TBAC-Canterbury, Inc.                       A Delaware Corporation                      TBAC-Canterbury, Inc.

Amity / Rolfs, Inc.                         A Delaware Corporation                      Amity / Rolfs, Inc.

Tiger Accessories, Inc.                     A New York Corporation                      Tiger Accessories, Inc.
TBAC General Management Co.                 A Delaware Corporation                      TBAC General Management Co.

TBAC Investment, Inc.                       A Delaware Corporation                      TBAC Investment, Inc.

TBAC Investment Trust                       A Pennsylvania Trust                        TBAC Investment Trust

TBAC Management Co., L.P.                   A Delaware Limited Partnership              TBAC Management Co., L.P.

Tandy Brands Accessories Handbags, Inc.     A Delaware Corporation                      Tandy Brands Accessories
                                                                                        Handbags, Inc.
</TABLE>
Case 3:22-cv-01416-N Document 195 Filed 06/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 7640
Case 3:22-cv-01416-N Document 195 Filed 06/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 7641
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tarsis Matos, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered March 8, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life, to 15 *309years and *SVz*to 7 years, respectively, to run consecutively to a sentence of 30 years to life imposed in New Jersey for an unrelated murder, unanimously affirmed.

Following an early morning verbal altercation in a discotheque, in which all bystanders knew one another, defendant shot and killed a patron. Three of those present testified against defendant at trial. As to two other eyewitnesses, one was mentally disturbed and the other could not be located by the People.

Defendant contends that a missing witness charge should have been given as to these two witnesses. We note that police documentation of statements provided by these witnesses after the crime is consistent with testimony offered by the available witnesses at trial, and there is no reason to believe that their testimony would have contradicted or added to that of the other witnesses. *(See, People v Almodovar,*62 NY2d 126, 133.) We conclude that neither subject witness would have provided material noncumulative testimony, and that neither witness was available to, or under the control of, the People before trial *(People v Gonzalez,*68 NY2d 424; *People v Erts,*73 NY2d 872).

Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence to run consecutive to the New Jersey sentence which was imposed for another murder. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Michelle Leigh Leinneweber, * From the County Court at Law No. 2

 of Taylor County

Trial Court No. 2-1384-14.

Vs. No. 11-16-00222-CR * August 23, 2018

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting

by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.