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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Managed Pension Assets Partnership 1991-A, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations contained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         1,208
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,156
<PP&E>                                         1,596,442
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,282,143)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 327,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          308,068
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     19,387
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   327,455
<SALES>                                        20,225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               20,284
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  231,554<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (218,256)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (218,256)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (218,256)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________ 

No. 20-1092 

___________________________ 

 

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v. 

John Axelgard

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________ 

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

 ____________ 

Submitted: July 7, 2020

Filed: July 13, 2020

[Unpublished] 

____________ 

 

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ 

 

PER CURIAM.

 The district court1

 ordered John Axelgard involuntarily committed based on a 

“mental disease or defect.” 18 U.S.C. § 4246 (authorizing commitment when 

1

The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the 
- 2 - 

releasing a person who suffers from a “mental disease or defect” would “create a 

substantial risk of bodily injury . . . or serious damage to property”). On appeal, 

Axelgard’s counsel requests permission to withdraw and challenges the factual 

findings underlying the court’s commitment decision. Axelgard seeks unconditional 

release in a pro se supplemental brief and requests new counsel. 

We conclude that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly 

erroneous. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (stating that a clear-and-convincing-evidence 

standard applies in this type of commitment proceeding); United States v. Williams, 

299 F.3d 673, 676 (8th Cir. 2002) (discussing the standard of review on appeal). 

Evidence in the record, including several expert opinions, established that Axelgard

has a mental illness, that his dangerous behavior is related to it, and that he would 

likely discontinue treatment if he were released. See United States v. Ecker, 30 F.3d 

966, 970 (8th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, 

deny Axelgard’s motion for new counsel, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________ 

Honorable David P. Rush, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District 

of Missouri.
### ZuQuad 1

- 2 PRE FLIGHT CHECK

□ Plan Flight Path

□ Attach RX Antenna

□ Attach RX Display to Controller

□ Switch SD switch Off ( UP )

- Stable control

□ Power on Controller

□ Set Controller GPS ON / Set IOC OFF

□ Check Battery Voltage

□ Insert Battery for Phantom

□ Power ON / Power ON TX (Switches

- 2 Down 1 ,3,4, Up )

□ Power ON Camera and Set to Desired Photo/Video Mode

□ Place Phantom In CLEAR/SAFE Area

□ Power ON RX / Display

□ Check Power Levels | RX/Display | Camera | Controller

Note: Controller Power s hould not be bellow 7

. 0 v
□ TEST Video Feed / Adjust Camera Tilt

□ Wait for GREEN Light

□ Set Timer

10 min for ZuQuad1 and 7 min for ZuQuad2

□ Check All Clear / Take Off

□ Switch SD switch On ( DOWN )

- Stable control

________________________________________________ 

### ZuQuad 1

- 2 BATTERY CHANGE

□ Pause Photo/Video on GoPro

□ Remove Battery for Phantom

□ Log Battery Old and New Battery use

□ Check Battery Voltage

□ Insert New Battery for Phantom

□ Power ON / Power ON TX (Switches

- 2 Down 1 ,3,4, Up )

□ Power ON Camera and Set to Desired Photo/Video Mode

□ Place Phantom In CLEAR/SAFE Area

□ Power ON RX / Display

□ Switch SD switch Off ( UP )

- Stable control

□ Check Power Levels | RX/Display | Camera | Controller

Note: Controller Power should not be bellow 7

. 0 v
□ Reset Futaba Timer if Flying ZuQuad2

□ TEST Video Feed / Adjust Camera Tilt

□ Wait for GREEN Light

□ Set Timer

10 min for ZuQuad1 and 7 min for ZuQuad2

□ Check All Clear / Take Off

□ Switch SD switch On ( DOWN )

- Stable control

______________________________________________
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended December 29, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                        
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: February 7, 2006 |  | /s/ JEFFREY T. GRAY    
|                        |  | Jeffrey T. Gray        
|                        |  | Chief Financial Officer



21
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 73686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20497]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4795-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


New Mexico; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-4795-DR), dated June 20, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 21, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective August 20, 2024.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-20497 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**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 Quarterly Report ofOn-Site Sourcing Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the Report), I, Christopher Weiler, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2) The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Christopher Weiler  |
|-------------------------|
| Christopher Weiler      |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| May 15, 2003            |

 

1

----
* District Judge of the Western Dist rict of Louisiana, sitting by

designation.

** Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that th i s opinion s h ould not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________ No. 99-60520

_______________________

GRAND OAKS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
ARTHUR W. ANDERSON; JERRY HOLLINGSWORTH, Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(3:94-CV-159-S-D)

_________________________________________________________________ July 14, 2000
Before JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges, and WALTER * , District Judge.

PER CURIAM: **

The court has carefully considered this appeal in light
of the briefs, oral arguments and pertinent portions of the record. Having done so, we find no reversible error of law or fact. In particular, considering Hollingsworth’s crucial role in the2

development of Grand Oaks, we cann ot say that there was
insufficient evidence under the Boeing standard to send this case

to the jury. S ee Boeing Co. v. Shi pman , 411 F.2d 365, 374 (5th
Cir. 1969). As to Anderson, there was clearly sufficient evidence

to support the verdict. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                     UNITED PAYORS & UNITED PROVIDERS, INC.
                                AND SUBSIDIARIES
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999


     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Consolidated  Balance  Sheets and  Statements  of  Operations of United Payors &
United  Providers,  Inc. as of and for the six months ended June 30, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          39,821,549
<SECURITIES>                                     5,973,865
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,441,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,886,995
<PP&E>                                           7,886,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,502,989
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,725,961
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,529,264
<BONDS>                                         14,522,738
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        63,676,212
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,994,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   152,725,961
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,876,302
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,866,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 674,697
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,175,352
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,070,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,105,352
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,105,352
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.65



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

No. 17102.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1934.

R. T. Correll and John W. Payne, both of Perryton, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for robbery; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

The evidence heard in the trial court is not brought up for review.

The indictment was filed November 14, 1933. The trial took .place on April 5, 1934. On that date -an application for a continuance was made because of the absence of the mother of the appellant, who, according to the application, was alleged to have ¡been ill. This was a subsequent application for a continuance. In the absence of the statement of facts, this court is not able to determine whether the evidence sought from the witness was material or whether it was cumulative, or, at any rate, to ascertain the merits of the application. The averments in the application are controverted in the written statement of the district attorney in which, among oth*226er things, it is stated that the evidence sought was cumulative, and that the motion was the third application which had been filed.

In the motion for new trial the rulings of the court are assailed in many respects. In the absence of the statement of facts revealing the evidence that was before the trial court, the relevancy and materiality of the mattérs set up in the motion cannot be determined.

Appellant was allowed sixty days after April 14, 1934, within which to prepare and file the statement of facts.

The judgment of the court appears regular. It also appears that the term of court was extended to complete the trial.

Perceiving nothing in the record which would require or authorize a reversal, the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.32





SUMMARY OF CASH COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS

FOR NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS





The base salaries and other cash compensation arrangements for the current
executive officers named in the Companys 2005 Proxy Statement are as follows:



|                     |  |                 |  |                           |  |                             
|-------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Executive Officer    |  | 2005 BaseSalary |  | AnnualPerformanceBonus(1) |  | Long-TermPerformanceBonus(2)
|J. Patrick Spainhour |  | $950,000        |  | $167,428                  |  | $684,000                    
|Kay Krill            |  | $950,000        |  | $805,600                  |  | $684,000                    
|Dwight Meyer         |  | $490,000        |  | $103,704                  |  | $211,680                    
|James Smith          |  | $370,000        |  | $  78,307                 |  | $159,840                    
|Anthony Romano       |  | $375,000        |  | $  76,190                 |  | $155,520                    



Base salaries and
participation in cash bonus plans may be adjusted from time to time as determined by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.



---

|(1) | Amounts earned for fiscal year 2004 performance and paid in 2005 under the Companys Management Performance Compensation Plan.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Amounts earned for the 2002-2004 three-year cycle under the Companys Long-Term Cash Incentive Plan and paid in 2005.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET,  STATEMENTS  OF  OPERATIONS,  STATEMENTS  OF CASH  FLOWS,  AND THE  NOTES
THERETO,  WHICH MAY BE FOUND ON PAGES 2 THROUGH 6 OF THE  COMPANY'S  FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30,  1999,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         149,059
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  40,459
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               313,141
<PP&E>                                         93,919
<DEPRECIATION>                                 27,031
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 475,440
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,937,993
<BONDS>                                        184,203
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    66,667
<COMMON>                                       450
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,754,975)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   475,440
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               759,169
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  176,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,994,765
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             66,381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,478,842)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,478,842)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,700)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,480,542)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.35)


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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered December 10, 1986, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of the crime of robbery in the second degree and which sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of 4 to 8 years’ imprisonment, to run consecutive to an unrelated 3-to-6-year sentence being served by defendant, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant and an accomplice robbed the complainant of his money and personal property. On cross-examination, the complainant falsely denied having spoken to the prosecutrix earlier in the day about the case. It is the People’s obligation, when aware that their witness has been untruthful, to either make a statement to that effect or elicit from their witness an admission of the falsehood *(People v Novoa,*70 NY2d 490, 496-497). On redirect examination, the prosecutrix adequately fulfilled this obligation by presenting leading questions to the complainant including "we discussed this case, your testimony; didn’t we?” Once again on summation the People concede that this was a point on which the complainant had not told the truth.

Codefendant Green had testified that no robbery occurred but that instead the event revolved around the fact that the complainant was a disgruntled drug seller who had sold Green inferior drugs which Green would not pay for. The People elicited testimony from a rebuttal witness who testified that she had observed two men in front of the complainant point something at him while he was up against a railing. The rebuttal testimony was an offer of evidence to disprove an affirmative fact that defendant has tried to prove on direct examination. *(People v Harris,*57 NY2d 335, 345, *cert denied*460 US 1047.) The court did not abuse its discretion by permitting such testimony. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Rubin, JJ.
# FAA -).0

# iO

# -onD Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted 

### Date Response National Business Aircraft Association Eli Coni Regional Airline Association Dave Lotterer Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman ATA Craig -Fabian