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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001002175
<NAME>                        LABTEC INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   Apr-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                           450,348
<SECURITIES>                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                   16,352,433
<ALLOWANCES>                    (1,399,274)
<INVENTORY>                     10,344,085
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                27,394,372
<PP&E>                           6,271,990
<DEPRECIATION>                  (3,989,348)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  42,155,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           11,926,590
<BONDS>                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      0
<COMMON>                             69,072
<OTHER-SE>                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     42,155,494
<SALES>                          15,512,259
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 15,512,259
<CGS>                             9,175,194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     6,047,212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     27,360
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  761,396
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (498,903)
<INCOME-TAX>                         49,297
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (548,200)
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                       (548,200)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.08)


</TABLE>
----

**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period                ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the                requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                Act of                1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| (2)    | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company.                                                                                                                                              |

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-20-00463-CV

Texas Department of State Health Services and John Hellerstedt, in his Official Capacity as 

Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, Appellants

v.

Crown Distributing LLC; America Juice Co. LLC; Custom Botanical Dispensary, LLC; 

and 1937 Apothecary, LLC, Appellees

FROM THE 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 

NO. D-1-GN-20-004053, THE HONORABLE LORA J. LIVINGSTON, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellees have filed an emergency motion for Rule 29.3 temporary relief, seeking

reinstatement of the trial court’s order granting their application for a temporary injunction and 

enjoining appellants from enforcing Rule 300.104. See 25 Tex. Admin. Code § 300.104 (2020) 

(Dep’t of State Health Servs., Manufacture, Processing, Distribution, and Retail Sale of Hemp 

Products for Smoking) (“The manufacture, processing, distribution, or retail sale of consumable 

hemp products for smoking is prohibited.”). We requested a response and issued a temporary 

order granting the relief while we considered the motion and response. See Texas Dep’t of State 

Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC, No. 03-20-00463-CV, 2020 WL 5778128, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Austin Sept. 23, 2020, order) (per curiam).
2

For the reasons stated in this Court’s opinion in this case, see Texas Dep’t of State 

Health Servs. v. Crown Distrib. LLC, No. 03-20-00463-CV, 2021 WL ________, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Austin Aug. 5, 2021, no pet. h.) (mem. op.), we exercise our discretion under Rule 29.3

and grant appellees’ Rule 29.3 motion in part and deny it in part, see Tex. R. App. P. 29.3. We 

temporarily enjoin appellants from enforcing Rule 300.104’s prohibitions against distribution or 

retail sale of consumable hemp products for smoking until disposition of the appeal. See id. R. 

18 (“The appellate court’s judgment on an appeal from an interlocutory order takes effect when 

the mandate is issued.”).

It is ordered on August 5, 2021.

Before Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Kelly
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 9 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H327-H328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                THE SECOND ROUND OF THE BAILOUT MISTAKE

  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, the second half of the Wall Street bailout 
is being jammed at this House today--again, with a cursory review by 
the committees that should be meeting

[[Page H328]]

their constitutional responsibilities. I have a simple question:
  Why would any Member trust the very same group who engineered the 
first bill to do it to America again?
  That first bill has not worked. It has made the foreclosure crisis 
worse, which is at the heart of what is wrong with this economy. Yet 
Wall Street was handsomely showered with taxpayer billions, and they 
then thumbed their noses at Main Streets across this country.
  I wouldn't expect anything from Treasury in the way of sensitivity to 
regular folks. Its job is to sell U.S. debt on Wall Street and to 
collect taxes. They're not designed to do real estate lending or 
housing workouts or real estate accounting. That's the job of the FDIC, 
of the SEC and of HUD. They should be in the lead in the mortgage 
workout process. And frankly, we ought to quadruple the number of 
financial crimes analysts at the FBI.
  I repeat: Why would Congress allow itself to be hoodwinked not once 
but twice into making the same big mistake? I urge my colleagues to 
vote no on the second Wall Street bailout bill. Instead let's do what 
works for the American people by solving the home foreclosure crisis 
first.

                          ____________________
```
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Chadwick Daray Heath , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00191

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR

- 22

- 28584 ). Panel consists of Chief Justice Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Rambin

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court below. We affirm the judgment of the tr ial court. We note that the appellant, Chadwick Daray Heath , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 14, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                5
<CIK>                                    0001002175
<NAME>                                   LABTEC INC.

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           APR-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                   647,050
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                            23,719,045
<ALLOWANCES>                             1,438,796
<INVENTORY>                              11,784,379
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         35,792,603
<PP&E>                                   7,326,263
<DEPRECIATION>                           4,835,007
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           60,921,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    24,190,265
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                                 72,251
<OTHER-SE>                               4,104,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             60,921,278
<SALES>                                  37,186,584
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         37,186,584
<CGS>                                    22,275,774
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            13,368,369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         59,208
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       1,762,905
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (279,672)
<INCOME-TAX>                             255,483
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (535,155)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          (1,015,550)
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                             (1,550,705)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (0.22)





</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1208 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 317
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1208

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 2017

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                           February 15, 2018

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 9155 Schaefer Road, Converse, Texas, as the ``Converse Veterans Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CONVERSE VETERANS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 9155 Schaefer Road, Converse, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Converse Veterans Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Converse 
Veterans Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 317

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1208

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 9155 Schaefer Road, Converse, Texas, as the ``Converse Veterans Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           February 15, 2018

                       Reported without amendment
```
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00243

- CV
Logicorp Mexico SA de CV v. Jorge Andrade
On Appeal from the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. C

- 4746

- 18

- F(1)

JUDGMENT This Court ’ s judgment issued December 1, 2022, is hereby withdrawn and the following is substitute d therefor

. THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having conside red this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion . Co sts of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 26, 2023
### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

20 1 5 WY 45

October Term, A.D. 20 1 4

March 25, 2015

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, WYOMING STATE BAR,

Petitioner,

v.

THOMAS E. BARNES, WSB #5

- 2087,

Respondent. D

- 12

- 0009



### O RDER 

### R EINSTATING 

### A T TORNEY TO THE 

### P RACTICE OF 

### L AW

[¶1] This matter came before the Court upon the “ Report and Recommendation for

Reinstatement ,” filed herein March 16 , 20 1 5 , by the Board of Professional Responsibility for the Wyoming State Bar. By order entered January 16

, 201 3 , this Court disbarred Respondent. Pursuant to Section 24(c) of the Disciplinary Code, this Court specified that Respondent would be permitted to petition for reinstatement to the Wyoming State Bar two years after the date of suspension. Board of Pro fessional Responsibility, Wyoming

State Bar v. Barnes

, 2013 WY 5

, 297 P.3d 77 (Wyo. 2013)

. Now, a fter a careful review of the Board of Professional Responsibility’s Report and Recommendation for

Reinstatement and the file, this Court finds that the Report and Recommendation should be approved, confirmed

, and adopted by the Court; and that the Respondent, Thomas E.

Barnes , should be reinstated to the practice of law. It is, therefore,

[¶ 2 ] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Board of Professional Responsibilit y’s Report and Recommendation for Reinstatement , which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall be, and the same hereby is, approved, confirmed

, and adopted by this Court ; and it is further[¶3 ] ADJUDGED AND ORDERED that the Respondent, Thomas E. Barnes , be, and hereby is, reinstated to the practice of law in Wyoming , effective immediately ; and it is

further

[¶4 ] ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4( a ) (iv) of the Disciplinary Code for the Wyoming State Bar, this Order Reinstating Attorney to the Pra ctice of Law , along with the incorporated Report and Recommendation for Reinstatement , shall be published in the Wyoming Reporter and the Pacific Reporter; and it is further

[¶5 ] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall docket this Order Reinstating

Att orney to the Practice of Law , along with the incorporated Report and

Recommendation for Reinstatement

, as a matter coming regularly before this Court as a public record; and it is further

[¶6 ] ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transmit a copy of this Order Reinstating Attorney to the Practice of Law to the members of the Board of Professional Responsibility and to the clerks of the appropriate courts of the State of Wyoming.

[¶7 ] DATED this 25 th day of March , 20 1 5

.

BY THE COURT: *

/s/

E. JAMES BURK E

Chief Justice

* Justice Davis took no part in the consideration of this matter.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1909

E. LOWELL MASON, Debtor - Appellant, versus SUSAN L. SOWELL, Trustee - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-03-234-3; CA-03-271-3; BK-02-33458; AP-03- 3026) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: April 30, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. E. Lowell Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Leigh Sowell, KAHEN, MUCHIN, ZAVIS & ROSENMAN, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: E. Lowell Mason appeals from the district court’s order dismissing as interlocutory his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s orders: (1) finding him in civil contempt and stating how he may purge that contempt; (2) denying his motion to disqualify the bankruptcy court judge and setting a hearing on other pending motions; and (3) denying his motion to dismiss an adversary proceeding a gainst him. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeMason v. Sowell , Nos. CA-03-234-3, BK-02- 33458, AP-03-3026 (W.D.N.C. filed July 18, 2003, entered July 23, 2003; filed Aug. 4, 2003, entered Aug. 6, 2003). We deny Mason’s motion for clarification of the lower courts’ jurisdiction and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
      a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;
 b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;
 c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and
 d.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
  a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
and
 b.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: July 16, 2010
    /s/ Andrew C. PlummerAndrew C. Plummer, Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Exhibit 24.6

 

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS

             WHEREAS, ALCAN INC., a Canadian corporation (the "Company"), proposes shortly tofile with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions of theSecurities Act of 1934 as amended (the "Act"), the Annual Report on Form 10-Kpursuant to Section 13 or 15 (d) of the Act.

             WHEREAS, the undersigned is an Officer and/or a Director of the Company asindicated below;

             NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints R. Millington,D. McAusland and P. Chenard and each of them, as attorneys for the undersignedand in the undersigned's name, place and stead, and in each of the undersigned'soffices and capacities as an Officer and/or a Director of the Company, toexecute and file such Annual Report on Form 10-K, hereby giving and granting tosaid attorneys full power and authority to do and perform all and every act andthing whatsoever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises asfully, to all intents and purposes, as the undersigned might or could do ifpersonally present at the doing thereof, hereby ratifying and confirming allthat said attorneys may or shall lawfully do, or cause to be done, by virtuehereof.

             IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of March 2003.

                                                                         Signed:        /s/ Guy Saint-Pierre                                                                         Name:         Guy Saint-Pierre                                                                         Title:           Director
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

June 19 , 2015

Mr. Juan Amaya

. 1015 Aoloa Pl 355

Kailua

, HI 96734

Dear Mr

. Amaya :

This is in response to your letter dated May 6 , 2015

, posted to the public docket (No

. FAA

- 2015

- 1315 ) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate rulemaking to c hange the provisions in § 61.199 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). In your petition, you request the FAA include a provision for current military instructor pilots to be able to renew an expired FAA instructor certificate

.

In accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73 , the FAA must use the following criteria when making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) The immediacy of the safety or security concerns you raise; 2) The priority of other is sues the FAA must deal with; and 3) The resources we have available to address these issues

.

Each year, t he FAA prioritizes its rulemaking projects based on issues that are crucial to the safety of the aviation community and the traveling public to ensure the FAA delivers the most value to the aviation system

.

After reviewing your request b ased on the current priorities for the FAA and the guidelines found in § 11.73, we determined the issue you raised does not meet the criteria to pursue rulemaking at th is time. However, your comments and arguments for the proposed rule change in your petition will be placed in a database, which we will examine when we consider future rulemaking.

If the FAA does pursue rulemaking in this area in the future, you would be able to find

out and track it through one of the two following websites :2

 For significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) website ( http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report

- on

significant

- rulemakings )

.

 For non

- significant rulemakings, you can find the status on the DOT’s semi

annual regulatory agenda , through the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affair’s (OIRA) Unified Agenda website ( http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain ).

For the reasons above, we are dismissing your petition for rulemaking in accordance with

14 C FR § 11.73.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service