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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-25-2000
<CASH>                                           5,530
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  167,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,996
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,914
<PP&E>                                          45,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,118
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 288,163
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,414
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,725
<OTHER-SE>                                     181,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   288,163
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,833
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,091
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,011)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,206)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,805)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,151
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 10,645
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,991
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09


</TABLE>
I

Ka 'Ohana 0 Kala up~ Board of Directors 

I Clarence "Boogie" Kahilihiwa 

1 President 

! Pauline Ahulau Chow 

Vice President 

Pauline Ka'iulani Puahala Hess 

Treasurer 

MakiaMalo 

Director 

Gloria Marks 

Director 

I Mark Ellis 

Director 

Glenn Harada 

Director 

Sol Kaho'ohalahala 

Director 

I 

Colette Machado 

Director 

i Charmaine Woodward 

I Director 

l 

l Sister Davilyn Ah Chick, OSF 

I 

l 

I 

I 

i 

' 

Director 

Patrick Boland 

Director 

Valerie Monson 

Coordinator and Secretary 

... To Honor and To Perpetuate" 

October 28, 2013 

Kevin D. Schlemn:ler, Chief 

Essential Air Service & Domestic Analysis Division 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jerseys Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Order 2013-10-3, servicing Kalaupapa, Hawaii 

Sent via email and US Mail 

Aloha Chief Schlemmer, 

. : ~.. , ..... 

Ka 'Ohana 0 Kalaupapa is a 501-c-3 nonprofit organization made up of Kalaupapa 

residents, family members, descendants and longtime friends of the community. Our 

mission is to advocate for the needs of residents, develop educational programs for the 

public, help descendants learn about their ancestors at Kalaupapa and work in 

collaboration for the preservation of this important history. 

I am writing on behalf of the 'Ohana Board of Directors regarding Order 2013-10-3, 

servicing Kalaupapa, Hawaii, to respectfully ask that Makani Kai Airlines be granted 

the Essential Air Service contract to continue offering air service to Kalaupapa. For the 

past two years, Makani Kai has provided exceptional service to the Kalaupapa 

community, their family members who wish to visit them and others who want to 

travel to this remote peninsula that has played such a large part in the history of 

Hawaii. Airfares are affordable, the service provided by the pilots and staff is 

outstanding and the administration works closely with the Kalaupapa community to 

make sure the schedule meets the needs of residents. 

Dependable and affordable air travel is essential for those of us at Kalaupapa where we 

live in a peninsula accessible only by a horse trail down a steep, 3-mile cliff or by small 

airplanes. We rely on air travel for medical appointments, personal business trips, 

family visits and general shopping. 

During the past two years, I can't remember a single complaint about Makani Kai 

Airlines- an amazing accomplishment in the air industry. 

Please grant the Essential Air Service for Kalaupapa commencing January 1, 2014, to 

Makani Kai Airlines to enable them to continue providing this important service to the 

Kalaupapa community and those who wish to visit. 

Respectfully, 

V~.e;~ 

{tJr Clarence Kahilihiwa 

President 

P.O. Box 1111 Kalaupapa, Hawai'i 96742 www .kalaupapaohana.org
#### CLEPPER v. STATE.

No. 20137.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 1, 1939.

Thos. L. Robinson, of Gatesville, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possession of intoxicating liquor in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $150.

It is shown in bill of exception No. 3 that the county attorney, in addressing the jury, used language as follows: “The defendant can, in some instances, overcome evidence that he didn’t possess beer for the purpose of sale, but I haven’t heard any evidence from the defendant that he didn’t possess it for the purpose of sale.”

Appellant objected to the argument on the ground that it constituted a direct reference to his failure to testify. The objection was overruled. We think the bill of exception presents a violation of the mandatory provision of Art. 710, C.C.P., which prohibits allusion to or comment on the accused’s failure to testify. Brumbelow v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 198, 54 S.W.2d 528. It follows that we are constrained to order a reversal of the judgment.

The opinion is expressed that upon another trial the court should submit an instruction covering the law of circumstantial evidence.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals' has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
SERVED: JOLV 14,2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA HON 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

DEAN IN FERNATiONAL, FNC. 

FAA DOCKEINO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penally Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2011-0069 

•9^^'^^^ I MEN I OF 

,:;!Cf^^PpRWTJON 

•-'•-'-{ GPBWIONS 

2\M\ JUL !L, p 2: ID 

ORDER REASSIGNING PROCEEDING 

!n the interest of judicial efilciency, the above-captioned proceeding is reassigned from 

Chief Administrative Law Judge Ronnie A. Yodcr to Administrative Law Judge Jcslyn E. 

Suihvan. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be 

served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service 

List. 

SOOIU»ERED. 

.. Yodcr/ 

Chief Adhiinistrativekaw^udgc 

Attachment - Service List 
FDMS No. FAA-2011-0069 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue. S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC^3 0 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WIOOO' 

ONE COPY 

Stuart A. Goldstein, ResponcJenCs Counsel 

Law Ofllces of Goldstein & Sordo 

9350 South Dixie Highway, 10th Floor 

Miami, FL 3*3156 

TEL: 305-670-1222 

FAX: 305-670-7065 

Email: SL:oldst219(f?)aol.com 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Complainant's Counsel 

OlTice of the Regional Counsel, ASO-7 

Sonlhcrn Region 

Federal Aviation Admini.stration 

P.O. Box 20636 

Atlanta. GA 30320 

lEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Jeslyn E. Sullivan, 

Adminlslralive Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Ofdee of Hearings, M-20, Room El2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington. DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2 \ 32 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or bi' expedued courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Adininislralion, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2WI000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2269 

To reauthorize the Global Food Security Act of 2016 for 5 additional years. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 21, 2017 

Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. ISAKSON) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Global Food Security Act of 2016 for 

5 additional years. 

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 ‘‘Global Food Security 

5 Reauthorization Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

7 (a) ASSISTANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE GLOBAL FOOD

8 SECURITY STRATEGY.—Section 6(b) of the Global Food 

9 Security Act of 2016 (22 U.S.C. 9305(b)) is amended by 

10 striking ‘‘fiscal years 2017 and 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘fis11 cal years 2017 through 2023’’. 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2269 IS

1 (b) EMERGENCY FOOD SECURITY PROGRAM.—Sec2 tion 492(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 

3 U.S.C. 2292a(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal years 

4 2017 and 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2017 through 

5 2023’’. 

6 SEC. 3. GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY STRATEGY IMPLEMENTA7 TION REPORTS. 

8 Section 8(a) of the Global Food Security Act of 2016 

9 (22 U.S.C. 9307(a)) is amended— 

10 (1) by striking ‘‘Not later than 1 year and 2 

11 years’’ and inserting ‘‘During each of the first 7 

12 years’’; and 

13 (2) by striking ‘‘for 2017 and 2018’’ and in14 serting ‘‘at the end of the reporting period’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           9,556
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  640,060
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           1,763
<DEPRECIATION>                                     412
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,295,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      76,588
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,295,780
<SALES>                                         64,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,508
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,959
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,728
<INCOME-TAX>                                       376
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,352
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,330
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25
        

</TABLE>
1

NO. 12-10-00115-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ALEXIUS HORTON,

APPELLANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal from the revocation of Appellant’s community supervision is being 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when 

notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended 

in open court unless a motion for new trial is timely filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). 

Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within 

ninety days after the sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. TEX. R. APP. P.

26.2(a)(2). Appellant did not file a motion for new trial. Sentence was imposed on 

February 11, 2010. Therefore, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to have been filed on 

or before March 15, 2010. However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until 

April 14, 2010 and did not file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal 

as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3 

(appellate court may extend time for filing notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after 

deadline for filing notice of appeal, appellant files notice of appeal in trial court and 

motion complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) in appellate court).

On April 21, 2010, this court notified Appellant that his notice of appeal was 

untimely and that there was no timely motion for an extension of time to file the notice of 

appeal as permitted by rule 26.3. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would 
2

be dismissed unless, on or before May 3, 2010, the information filed in this appeal was 

amended to show the jurisdiction of this court. Appellant’s counsel responded that after 

reviewing the controlling law, it appears that this court does not have jurisdiction of this 

appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

Opinion delivered May 12, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
#### MIDDLETON et ux. v. DOZIER CONST. CO.

No. 7954.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

March 14, 1934.

E. A. Bills, of Littlefield, and Robert A. Sowder, of Lubbock, for appellants.

White, Taylor & Gardner, of Austin, for appellee.

BLAIR, Justice.

This case is a companion ease to No. 7963, A. E. White et ux. v. Dozier Construction Company, 70 S.W.(2d) 240, this day decided by this court, and is ruled by the decision in said cause No. 7953.' Suffice it to say that appellee, Dozier Construction Company, sued appellants, J. J. Bliddleton and his wife, Winnie Middleton, to recover the balance due for paving the street abutting their property in the city of Littlefield, and to foreclose a mechanic’s' lien on said property securing the debt, and recovered judgment as. prayed. Ap-pellee also recovered a personal judgment against' appellants for $50, which was agreed to be a reasonable attorney’s fee in the instant case; but, because the property was the homestead of appellants, the .mechanic’s lien was correctly held not to secure the portion of the judgment allowing the attorney’s fees. 22 Tex. Jur. 324, § 224, and cases there cited. The properties and paving involved were on the same street, and the improvements were made under the same contract between appellee and the city of Littlefield, and, except as to the parties, the property, and the fact that the property in the instant case was homestead, the issues in the two cases were the same, and the mechanic’s lien contracts are identical, and the same proof as to the completion of the improvements and the acceptance of same by the city was made. Appellants paid the first installment due on the paving contract, and judgment was for the balance due on the paving obligation and for foreclosure of the mechanic’s lien securing the debt.

The mechanic’s lien contract was duly executed, acknowledged, and filed for record within the time prescribed for fixing such a lien on the homestead property. It was the voluntary contract of appellants, and appellants should pay for the improvements-under the rule so well stated in Texas Bitulithic Co. v. Warwick (Tex. Com. App.) 293 S. W. 160, 164, which reads -as follows: “If the owner of a homestead feels that he is unable to enjoy the benefits of paving in front of his property, he may, under our Texas law, refrain from executing a mechanic’s lien for the improvement of his homestead in that respect. If he does not expect to pay for such improvement, he should refrain from executing any such lien. On the other hand, the paving company could have left off its

*244paving in front of this particular property. Such is the practice where no lien is given on the homestead.”

Since the issues presented by the briefs in theke two cases are in all material respects the same, the judgment in the instant case will be affirmed upon the authority of the decision in said cause No. 7933, supra.

Affirmed.
Order entered August 28, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00439-CV

QBE AMERICAS, INC. AND SONIA DIAZ, Appellants

V.

DEYLAN WALKER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-14300

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s August 26, 2020 second motion for extension 

of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no 

later than September 28, 2020. Because this is an accelerated appeal and 

appellants’ brief was filed May 6, 2020, we caution appellee that further extensions 

will not be granted absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
07/01/201 1 09;4 0 FAX 2024935142 FAA + DMS g|001/00 1 

;-AR"iMEi\TOF 

•[••ioPORl'ATION 

r.;:iT)?En/UlO^-

UNITED STAlES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the Matte r of: GOJE T AIRLINES. LLC (VD GEAR 

Docket No. CP10CE0003 

FDMS No. FAA-2010-0025 

Served: June 30,2011 

EXTENSION OF TIME 

The appeal brief of Respondent GoJet Airlines, LLC (VD Gear Pins) is due on 

July 18, 2011. By document dated June 28, 2011, Respondent's counsel requests an 

extension of time until August 11, 2011, to file his appeal brief. Respondent's counsel 

represents that counsel for Complainant Federal Aviation Administration does not oppose 

Respondent's motion for extension of rime. 

The request for an extension of lime in which to file Respondent's appeal brief is 

granted. Respondent's appeal brief is now due to be filed on or before August 11, 2011.' 

J. RANDOLPH BABBITT, 

ADMINISTRATOR 

Federal Aviation Administration 

> I ' 

1 '-! 

VICKI S. LEEMON' 

Manager, Adjudication Branch 

' The ''mailing rule" (14 C.F.R. § 13.211(e)), which provides for 5 additional days afltT service 

by mail, does not apply to this extension. 

^ Issued under authority delegated to the Chief Counsel and the Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Litigation by Memorandum dated October 27, 1992, under 49 D.S.C. § 322(b) and 14 C.F.R. 

§ ] 3.202 {see 57 Fed. Reg. 58,280 (1992)) and rcdclcgaled by the Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Litigation to the Manager, Adjudication Branch, by Memorandum dated August 6, 1993.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011 of Retail
Ventures, Inc.; and
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report.
 Dated: May 20, 2011
    By:
    /s/ James A. McGradyJames A. McGrady,Chief Executive Officer, President,Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer (Principal
Executive Officer and Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS STATEMENT CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOUND ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          12,847
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               226,302
<PP&E>                                           2,496
<DEPRECIATION>                                     281
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 241,364
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,333
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,758
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,273
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   241,364
<SALES>                                         46,752
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,752
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,353
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,756
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,643
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,029
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,614
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,614
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.01

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-108604, 333-64418,
333-64092, 333-5769, and 33-81894) pertaining to the 2001 Stock Option Plan, 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1995 Stock Option Plan, the 1985 Employee Stock
Option Plan of Genelabs Technologies, Inc. and in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-108608, 333-108035 and 333-105390) and in
the related Prospectuses, respectively, of our reports dated March 8, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Genelabs Technologies, Inc., Genelabs
Technologies, Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Genelabs
Technologies, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

| |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
| |  | ---------------------

Palo
Alto, California
March 8, 2005

---



QuickLinks
Order entered June 28, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 12 - 01143 - CV LAKEITH AMIR - SHARIF, Appellant

V. QUICK TRIP CORPORATI ON, ET AL . , Appellee s On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Te xas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 09 - 13818 - E



### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s June 17, 2013 request for Court to take judicial notice of Texas Department of Criminal Justice verification of no advance notice of 3/8/2012 hearing. The Court DENIES the motion.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE