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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                           6,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,430
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    412,479
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               455,532
<PP&E>                                         377,402
<DEPRECIATION>                                 169,907
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 744,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          250,521
<BONDS>                                        144,168
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       114,733
<OTHER-SE>                                     227,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   744,181
<SALES>                                      1,670,176
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,670,176
<CGS>                                        1,039,145
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  579,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,400
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,932
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,468
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,468
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02


</TABLE>
#### GOLDING BROS. CO., Inc., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 17.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 8, 1940.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Sewall Key and F. E. Youngman, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before SWAN, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and PATTERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Decision affirmed.
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, AS AMENDED  In connection with the Annual Report of Guardian Technologies International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregory E. Hare, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended, that, to the best of his knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the reporting requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: April 15, 2008 Signed: /s/ Gregory E. Hare Name: Gregory E. Hare Title: Chief Financial Officer
# I **"VI#CIIV~** 

# - Temporary Revision PSMNO. : 1 - 2T- 2 AIRCRAFT: DHC-2 TURBO BEAVER SERIES: ALL 

### PUBLICA TI ON: MAINTENANCE MANUAL TEMPORARY REVISION NO.: 2T-14 Insert In Part 4, after page 92 PERIODIC INS PECTION REASON FOR ISSUE: To add El evator Control Rod Assembly to Period ic Inspection . ACTION: I n Part 4 , insert item 20A. ITEM NO. INSP . DUE 4th 20A. Inspec t the E levator Contro l Ro d, Elevato r Actuating Lever, and th e Column Torque Tube for corrosion, cracks and damage in accordance with paragraph 6 . 19C .

RECORDING INSTRUCTIONS : Record this Temporary Revision No. and the relevant i nfo rmation in the appropriate columns of the TEMPORARY REVISION INDEX provided at the front of the manual. Part 4 (TR 2T - 14) Page 

### 1 of 

### 2 04 March, 2015

### Temporary Revision No. 2T-14 (Cont'd)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK



### Part 4 (TR 2T-14) Page2 of 2 04 March, 20 1 5
**EXHIBIT 32.1****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION***     In connection with the Annual Report of Retail Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-K/A for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Heywood Wilansky, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.         /s/ Heywood Wilansky   Heywood Wilansky, President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11.1

                          CARDIAC PATHWAYS CORPORATION

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                  Three months ended
                                                     September 30,
                                               -----------------------------
                                                  1996             1995
                                               ------------     ------------ 

<S>                                            <C>              <C>
Net loss                                       $(2,550,287)     $(2,055,121)
                                               ===========      ===========

Weighted average common shares outstanding       9,284,000          870,000

Common equivalent shares:
  Convertible preferred stock outstanding                         5,450,000

Shares related to SAB No. 55, 64, and 83                            655,000
                                               -----------      -----------

Total weighted average shares and common
  equivalent shares outstanding                  9,284,000        6,975,000
                                               ===========      ===========

Net loss per share                             $     (0.27)
                                               ===========

Pro forma net loss per share                                    $    (0.29)
                                                                ===========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the audited
financial statements of Telecommunications Income Fund IX, L.P. as of December
31, 1998, the year ended December 31, 1998, and the three months ended March 31,
1998, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         711,589
<SECURITIES>                                   304,003
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,424,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,037,197
<DEPRECIATION>                               (261,600)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,215,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          494,374
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,721,580<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,721,580<F1>
<SALES>                                        402,020<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               402,020<F2>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               226,369<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                64,711<F2>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,817<F2>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 94,123<F2>
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             94,123<F2>
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    94,123<F2>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.39<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39<F3>
<FN>
<F1>Net Assets
<F2>For three months ending March 31, 1998; after that time, the Partnership began
liquidation basis accounting (see audited financial statements).
<F3>Net Income (Loss) per Partnership Unit
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
I, Bernard Boyer, hereby submit this petition for exemption under Section 333; FAA Modernization and Reform Act

of 2012, Public Law

112

- 95 FEB. 14,2012, Section 333. !request this exemption in order to operate my UAV/UAS, DJI Phantom 3 Standard Professional Quadcopter Aircraft, in order to provide services for profit to include aerial photography, aerial cinematography, aerial filming and photography for real estate, special events to include but not limited to weddings, private

or public parties/events, business advertising, promotional events.

**Aerial Operations Intention** Provide aerial view s of residential property listed with the MLS or to be listed Provide aerial views of commercial properties listed with the MLS or to be list ed. To w ork directly with Real Estate Brokers, Lenders and Appraisers and all of the above listed affiliates to obtain aerial views for valuations, marketing and overviews of topography. To work with private parties and provide unique still and video of hi gh quality for personal use if requested. The ability to provide these services to other local businesses and individuals in my community will benefit them by opening up opportunities they otherwise did not have before. Traditional methods of aerial photog raphy/videography are simply not viable options for the average consumer as they are costly and involve greater risks to everyone involved; i.e. the use oflarger aircraft carrying humans and flammable fuel. By utilizing the UAV/UAS the same results can be achieved with much safer conditions. Prior to each flight/operation of the UAV/UAS, w e will conduct a Pre

- Flight Safety Inspection as require. Only the manufacturers authorized repair facilities/ providers will perform any and all repairs. Flights will not take place over densely populated areas or private property without the owner's permission. The UAV/UAS will only be operated within visual line of sight and will not be flown near airports or above 400 feet. The FAA can be confidentthat operations of thi s UAV/UAS will achieve at least the equivalent or greater level of safety. The requests of this petition are similar to those of Mr. Todd Thomas Drone Pies, and Mr. Mike Lloyd 

### & Associates, all of who have received Section 333 exemptions for comparable air craft for similar operations.

Sincerely, Bernard Boyer 146 Hampshire Drive Mooresville NC, 28115 704

- 987

- 1670 Cell: 704

- 310

- 1354

The specific sections of 14 C.F.R from which I am seeking exemption are as follows: 14 C.F.R. Part 21; 14 C.F.R. 45.23(b); 14 C.F.R. 61.101(e)(4), & (5); 14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) 

### & (b); 14 C.F.R. 61.133 (a); 14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) 

### & ©; 14 C.F.R 91.7(a) 14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2); 14C.F.R. 91.109(a);
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1345 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the discriminatory treatment of the District of Columbia under the provisions of law commonly 

referred to as the ‘‘Hatch Act’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2009 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate the discriminatory treatment of the District of Columbia under 

the provisions of law commonly referred to as the ‘‘Hatch 

Act’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia 

5 Hatch Act Reform Act of 2009’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1345 IH

1 SEC. 2. EMPLOYEES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO BE 

2 SUBJECT TO THE SAME RESTRICTIONS ON 

3 POLITICAL ACTIVITY AS APPLY TO STATE 

4 AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES. 

5 (a) APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO

6 STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES.—Section 1501(1) of title 

7 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘a State 

8 or territory’’ and inserting ‘‘a State, the District of Co9 lumbia, or a territory’’. 

10 (b) PROVISIONS RELATING TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

11 MADE INAPPLICABLE.—Section 7322(1) of such title is 

12 amended— 

13 (1) by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end of subpara14 graph (A); 

15 (2) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph 

16 (B); 

17 (3) by striking subparagraph (C); and 

18 (4) by striking ‘‘services;’’ and inserting ‘‘serv19 ices or an individual employed or holding office in 

20 the government of the District of Columbia;’’. 

21 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

22 The amendments made by this Act— 

23 (1) shall take effect on the effective date of a 

24 law, enacted by the government of the District of 

25 Columbia after the date of the enactment of this 

26 Act, which places restrictions on political activities of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1345 IH

1 employees of the government of the District of Co2 lumbia; and 

3 (2) shall apply with respect to actions occurring 

4 on or after the effective date referred to in para5 graph (1). 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2112 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2112

To amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 to 
improve the treatment at non-Department of Veterans Affairs facilities 
 of veterans who are victims of military sexual assault, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 9, 2017

 Mrs. Ernst (for herself and Mrs. McCaskill) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 to 
improve the treatment at non-Department of Veterans Affairs facilities 
 of veterans who are victims of military sexual assault, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Sexual Assault Victims 
Empowerment Act'' or the ``Military SAVE Act''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENT OF TREATMENT FOR MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT AT NON-
              DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FACILITIES.

    Subsection (b)(2) of section 101 of the Veterans Access, Choice, 
and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; 38 U.S.C. 1701 
note) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``or'';
            (2) in subparagraph (D)(ii)(II)(dd), by striking the period 
        at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(E) is a victim of a military sexual trauma 
                described in section 1720D(a)(1) of title 38, United 
                States Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                Jan-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  Sep-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            682,770
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                            32,387
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                              33,905
<EQUITIES>                                       31,125
<MORTGAGE>                                            0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                         0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  746,282
<CASH>                                           36,241
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                               20,805
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           23,664
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,505,332
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 853,631
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             118,203
<POLICY-OTHER>                                        0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                 0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 109,252
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                              0
<OTHER-SE>                                      302,705
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  1,505,332
<PREMIUMS>                                      168,506
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                              36,206
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                  259 
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   13,372
<BENEFITS>                                      101,946
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      35,448
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             15,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  34,562
<INCOME-TAX>                                     10,616
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              25,021
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     25,021
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                        0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                   0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                     0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                      0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                       0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                               0
        


</TABLE>
#### TERRY et al. v. BASKIN et al.

Motions Nos. 10001, 10003; No. 1479-5734.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

Feb. 24, 1932.

For former opinion, see 44 S.W.(2d) 929, which reversed judgment in 27 S.W.(2d) 857.

CRITZ, J.

We have read and carefully considered motions for rehearing No. 10001, filed herein by A. H. Baskin et al., and motion No. 10003, filed hereby by Mrs. Jesse Terry Bailey et al., and recommend that both motions be in' all things overruled.

The original judgment in this case discloses that costs of appeal were taxed against A. H. Baskin, A. J. Lewis, and W. A. Morrison. «

We recommend that the costs be retaxed and all costs of appeal taxed against A. J. Lewis and W. A. Morrison.
#### VOGEL et al. v. STATE.

No. 8905.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 18, 1932.

O. M. Fitzhugh, of San Antonio, for appellants.

J. E. Friestman, of Leakey, for appellee.

FLY, C. J.

This appeal was perfected by appellants from a judgment of the county judge of Real county dismissing the cause from the county court, in which appellants were urging objections to the award made by commissioners appointed by the county judge to value and appraise certain land belonging to appellants in condemnation proceedings in said county court. Condemnation of the land was sought in order to be used in the construction of state highway No. 4. The cause was dismissed on the ground that the county court of Real county had been deprived of all jurisdiction except probate matters by the Legislature, and because a sum was demanded for the land in excess of the jurisdiction of the county court.

The county judge erred in dismissing the cause. Under the law the county court alone has jurisdiction of condemnation suits, and the value of the property is of no importance on the question of jurisdiction as to such cases. The county court has the power and jurisdiction to render judgments as to the value of lands in any sum, no matter how small or how great. The Legislature, in reducing the jurisdiction of the county courts, cannot deprive such courts of exclusive jurisdiction over cases of eminent domain by a general law. Articles 3264 to 3271, title 52, Revised Statutes of Texas. A special law reducing jurisdiction of the county court did not repeal the general law. Article 1960, as stated, specially retains county court jurisdiction in cases of eminent domain.

The questions herein discussed have been definitely decided in favor of the jurisdiction of the county court in condemnation suits by the Supreme Court and Courts of Civil Appeals. Southern Kansas Railway v. Vance, 104 Tex. 90,133 S. W. 1043; Balch v. Railway Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 161 S. W. 1091; Black Bros. v. State (Tex. Civ. App.) 253 S. W. 576; Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railway v. Jones (Tex. Com. App.) 24 S.W.(2d) 366; Tex. Jur. vol. 16, § 107, p. 717.

In the text-book last cited, the matter of eminent domain is fully considered, the authorities cited, and the statute clearly discussed. The text shows jurisdiction over cases of eminent domain to be lodged in the county court, regardless of the deprivation by the Legislature of all cases except those involving probate matters, and regardless of the value of the land sought to be condemned.

This conclusion as to the jurisdiction of county courts is so fully, clearly, and forcefully stated by the Supreme Court in Railway v. Vance, supra, that no one should err in regard to the matter.

The county court of Real county and that court alone has jurisdiction of this cause, and the dismissal- was plainly in the face of the law.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a trial in the county court of the issues raised in the suit.