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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                  PRIDE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                   EXHIBIT 27
                             FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                           ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X




The  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
consolidated  financial  statements for the six months ended May 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
       


<S>                                                    <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      nov-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                           may-31-1997
<CASH>                                                 12,675 
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          1,688,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            1,631,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       0
<PP&E>                                                 29,604,924
<DEPRECIATION>                                         4,934,115
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         37,410,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  0
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               2,838
<OTHER-SE>                                             10,615,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           37,410,258
<SALES>                                                7,758,060 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       8,255,602
<CGS>                                                  4,736,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          4,736,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       316,592
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     810,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (921,920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (921,920)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (921,920)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.33)
        


</TABLE>
NUMBER 13-20-00319-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

EIGHT THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED 

AND TWENTY AND 00/100 ($8,120.00) 

DOLLARS IN U.S. CURRENCY, Appellant,

 v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. 

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 28th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

This cause is before the Court on appellee’s motion to dismiss. The appellant’s 

brief in the above cause was originally due on January 4, 2021. On January 11, 2021

and January 27, 2021, the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief was past 
2

due. Subsequently, the Court granted appellant’s request for an extension of time to file 

the brief. On April 7, 2021, appellant appeared pro se and filed a brief that was not in 

compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. On 

April 4, 2021, the Clerk of the Court sent appellant notice of the defects and instructed 

him to file an amended brief within ten days of the notice. On May 7, 2021, the Clerk of 

the Court sent appellant a second defect notice and informed him that if the defects were 

not cured within ten days, the appeal shall be dismissed.

Appellant failed to file an amended brief, and the initial brief failed generally to 

comply with Rules 9.4(i)(3), 9.5(a, e), and 38.1(a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k), as required by 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Furthermore, pro se litigants are held to the same 

standards as licensed attorneys, and they must therefore comply with all applicable rules 

of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978). 

If a party files a brief that does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, the court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and 

proceed as if the party had failed to file a brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.9(a). Pursuant to Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to file a brief, the 

appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Additionally, an appellate 

court may dismiss a cause on any party’s motion for want of prosecution or for failing to 

comply with the rule or notice from the clerk required a response or action. TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(b),(c).
3

Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss, strike appellant’s nonconforming brief, and order the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(b)(c). 

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the 

26th day of August, 2021.
# C_2005143EN.01004302.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/43

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-176/00 (1)

1

(2005/C 143/80)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 11 March 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-176/00, Cargill B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.

1

---
# C_2005140EN.01000701.xml

| 9.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3776 — Vodafone/Oskar Mobile)

(2005/C 140/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 25 May 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3776. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3776. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 25 JULY 2012 

PP RUElwe .' ", .. .-

DE R UXQAA 13$' 2222..lV1a" \0 .' Inil' XXXXX KKK'.' ,..' 

! ~ 102 134Z "'~ " .. :.:l.t 

xxxxx . , . ..--..-~ (fPCE rJ 068 ~-•• 

OPCEN PAS 

T 9 Pi," IS RET 1 ~ 125Z A;;;; 71 CITE W HI G 1Z~ 8. M~W'":~~L €.'\IC?r::~.~ PRICRITV_ W.h"" \)11., •• " 

f£XAGON/SE€LR Y1}l~ 7 

FOR: ~. BROWNt.'A N U 

FROM COL BRAOBURN 

IN REGARD TO Hf EFFORT TO Rt:COVER THE LOST I£XAGOfl; lJ) RE-ENTRY VEHICLe Tit fOLLOWING QUEST IONS HAVE AR ISEN REGARD ING TfiC SOY lETS: 

A. /-lAY WE ASSUME THAT Ttf SJV lETS KNOW/SIJ3P~CT 

T~ T ':IE FA ILEO TO RECOVER T 1-£ RV? 

B. 00 H£Y HAVE A CAPABIL ITY TO RECOVER IT IF 

WE FA IL TO DO SOl 

C. IS IT PR09ASLE THAT H£Y W .. Y MONITOR THIS 

RECOVERY ATTEMPT, A~ DO THE NOR~.iALl V ift3NITOR OUR AIR 

RECOVER IE S7 

REQUEST YOU PROV IDE ANY PERT INENT DATA OR CO:W,!ENTS. 

rQPiESRET 

13T 

N 

N
#### Turkowski, Appellant, vs. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company and another, imp., Respondents.

*April 26*

May *15, 1917.*

*Peters v. Chicago & N.*W. *R. Co., ante,*p. 529, followed.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Waukesha county: Martin L. Lueck, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

The appeal is from an order sustaining a general demurrer to the complaint.

For the appellant there was a brief by *C. E. Armin<*of Waukesha and *GlicJcsman, Gold & Corrigan*of Milwaukee, attorneys, and *Arthur J. Pellette*of Milwaukee, of counsel, and oral argument by *Mr. Pel-lette.*

*R. N. Van Doren*of Milwaukee, for the respondent *Chicago <£ Northwestern Railway Company.*

For the respondent *Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company*the cause was submitted on the brief of *W. A. Rayes*of Milwaukee.

Marshall, J.

The questions presented here are identical with those in *Peters v. C. & N. W. R. Co., ante,*p. 529, 162 N. W. 916, and .the’’appeal is ruled in favor of respondent by the result in that case.

*By the Courfi.*— The order is .affirmed, and the cause remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings in accordance with this, opinion, one bill of costs to be taxed in each case.
```

[Federal Register: March 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 46)]
[Notices]               
[Page 11147]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10mr10-53]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers

 
Process for Requesting a Variance From Vegetation Standards for 
Levees and Floodwalls

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Extension of public comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In the February 9, 2010 issue of the Federal Register (75 FR 
6364), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), published its proposed 
update to its current process for requesting a variance from vegetation 
standards for levees and floodwalls for public comment. In that notice, 
the Corps stated that written comments must be submitted on or before 
March 11, 2010. Instructions for submitting comments are provided in 
the February 9, 2010, Federal Register notice. In response to several 
requests, the Corps has decided to extend the public comment period to 
April 25, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas J. Wade, Headquarters, 
Engineering and Construction Community of Practice, Washington, DC, at 
202-761-4668.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

    Dated: March 5, 2010.
John W. Hunter,
Engineering and Construction, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers.
[FR Doc. 2010-5126 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
```
The Honorable Donald E. O'Brien, United States District Judge for the Northern 1

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4237

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Jesus Garcia-Chavez, also known as * Northern District of Iowa.

Luis Hernandez-Chavez, also known *

as Luis Hernandez-Gomez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: June 3, 1997

 Filed: August 18, 1997

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jesus Garcia-Chavez challenges the sentence imposed by the district court after 1

he pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry of the United States following deportation, in

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). We affirm.

The presentence report (PSR) calculated a total offense level of 21, including a

sixteen-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2L1.2(b)(2) 
-2-

(1995) (enhancement applies if defendant deported after conviction for "aggravated

felony"), because Garcia-Chavez had been deported based on a Nebraska felony

conviction for possessing over one pound of marijuana, which the PSR indicated was

an aggravated felony. At sentencing, Garcia-Chavez argued, among other things, that

the Nebraska conviction fell outside the "heartland of cases" for which the enhancement

was intended, and that the district court therefore had discretion under Koon v. United

States, 116 S. Ct. 2035, 2045, 2047 (1996), to depart from the Guidelines. The district

court refused to depart, and sentenced Garcia-Chavez to 46 months imprisonment, to

be followed by two years supervised release unless Garcia is first deported upon

completing his 46-month sentence.

On appeal, Garcia-Chavez contends the district court erred by determining it

lacked authority to depart downward under Koon. After carefully reviewing the

sentencing transcript, however, we conclude that the court believed it had the authority

to depart, but determined departure was not warranted here. Thus, the district court's

departure decision is unreviewable. See United States v. Field, 110 F.3d 587, 591 (8th

Cir. 1997) (appellate court may not review district court's decision not to depart if

district court was aware of its departure authority). 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
/HriNATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

OFFICE OP THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR

'7.

23 April 1976

.aa.s.1114b ar‘ibra.a

Project Officer:

LtC

MEMORANDUM FOR /4R. PLUMMER

SUBJECT: Executive Order 11905--Restrictions on

Electronic Surveillance

Request that the memorandum on the right to

General Kulpa be signed.

The Staff is in the process of formulating a package

for you to forward to the OSD General Counsel, who has been

designated as the DOD implementing authority for the

Executive Order. The package will:*

Define our domestic requirements Vis-a-vis the

Executive Order;

Request a waiver of the Executive Order on the

basis of the nature of our requirements;

c. Outline and request approval of the NRP proceduress as required by the Executive Order, for conducting

and managing domestic surveillance requirements.

In preparing this package, the Staff will be working.

closely with personnel from each Program Office, the Air .

Force General Counsel through Majo and with the

IC Staff. .1n addition to the package or you to forward to

Mr. Wiley, the OSD General Counsel, we will have available

a specific breakout of each of our recurring photo and

SIGINT domestic requirements. We anticipate having the

package within the next two weeks.

CHARLES W. COOK

=tam

IntICUTIVI MOON EXMOPTION CATS.

TOON IICHIOULE OP

IDNOMPT

GOOV DUCLASIMPV ON WOE'?.

•

CONTROL NO

COPY OF COPE?

PAGE OF PAGE!
=mane11111111k PROM

OINIRAIL OMR OP

meanly' CA70•

GORY 1S2 siegiainiv ON mi• on

'CONTROL NO

COPY OP COPIES

PAGE 1 OP 1 PAGES

I • • •

fttr TIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

THE NRO STAFF

HENORANDUN FOR GENERAL EULPA

SUBJECT: Executive Order 11905--Restrictions on ElectrOnic

Surveillance •

Referencing your memorandum of 14 April 1976, I. agree

with your observations on the above subject. The NRO Staff

is preparing a package which requests authority from the

Attorney General to continue essential domestic requirements in support of our programs. The Staff will be working

with SAPSP as well as other members of the Intelligence

Community on this effort.

J. W. Plummer

• , .a.

. ••

•••••

r

.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Consortium Service Management Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), I, Donald S. Robbins, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); 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 __, 2005
By:
/s/ *Donald S. Robbins*Donald S. RobbinsChief Executive Officer








The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.




Exhibit 32Page 1 of 1 Page
Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101969 VIA TALENT-KEYHOLE 

CHANNELS ONLY 

7 July 1967 

POL-A-4 ' 

~ 

POL-A-5 ~ , 

I'vIElVIORANDUIVI FOR RECORD 11111111111111111111111111111111 Illlllllllllllllllllllllll 11111 /I 1400024398D 

SUBJECT: Disclosure of lithe fact of" Satellite Reconnaissance 

This most welcome and entirely unexpected memorandum arrived 

today. The DIA had processed the USIB's disclosure proposal through 

the JCS as a me morandum; General Wheeler had initialed it; it went 

to Mr. lVIcNamera; one hour later it was back with his non-concurrence. 

Safe for 1967! 

HANDLE VIA TALENT KEYHOLE 

C:-IANNELS ONLY 

". r~::"':";/"" ~ 

PAUL E. WORTHIVIAN 

Colonel, USAF 

Approved for Release: 2018/02/01 C05101969 

oaR
at the

111111111 lemma

MUM* Ms INITOssTIC ISGSSOP41

COMBOS NO Internal

cosr ow comas

-TOP-SECRET451- NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

THE NRO STAFF June 4, 1971

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: Admiral Moorer's Lecture at ICAF

Admiral Moorer presented a lecture at ICAF on June 1.

During the question period a student expressed concern over

security leaks in which apparently classified information

appeared in newspapers, and ask if Admiral Moorer would

comment. The Admiral did. The substance of his answer

was that all sorts of information was available to the

Soviets through our public media, but that they kept the

door closed to us and, we could not readily obtain in

about them, as a consequence we had to spend about/

per year to conduct our satellite reconnaissance pr

Although the presentation and discussion period were

TOP SECRET level, this is an obvious breach of the

system.

On June 4, Major Rose and I talked with Captain Harry

D. Train, II, Admiral Moorer's Executive Assistant and

Senior Aide. We explained the foregoing to him and asked

that he explain our concerns to the Admiral. Captain Train

said that he would do so. It was not apparent that Captain

Train was very seriously concerned with this breach of

security. He remarked that people seldom correct Admiral

Moorer--which can be interpreted two ways--and I chose to

interpret this in our favor. I said that we assumed so

and that is why we came directly, feeling that if we had

gone through normal channels the information would never

have arrived in Room 2E-872.

OOD lastCM11 GM Is INKS Nat alms
-TOP-SECRETI suggested that the NRO briefing might be informative

for he and Admiral Moorer. Stating that Admiral Moorer

probably knew more about the program than we did nevertheless

he would ask the Admiral if he wished such a briefing.

The tone of the meeting was friendly but cool.

101,--SECRET 1atiu010 11000 aorooanc 111001070

000 1011teCTott 0200 te mrs hot

CONTOOL00 Internal 

tory

or caws
### No.**04-14-00288-CR IN** **THE FOURTH** **COURT OF** **APPEALS AT** **SAN ANTONIO,** **TEXAS RICARDO** **ROGER MORALES** **Defendant vs.** **THE STATE** **OF TEXAS** 

### Plaintiff-**Appellee'""' ro** **On Appeal** **from the** **25th District** **Court of** **Guadalupe County,** **Texas Hon.** **William D.** **Old, III** **Presiding Trial** **Court Cause** **No. 13-1384-CR-A** **APPELLANT'S PRO** **SE MOTION** **FOR ACCESS** **TO APPELLATE** **RECORD TO** **THE HONORABLE** **FOURTH COURT** **OF APPEALS:** 

### Appellant**Ricardo Roger** **Morales' court-appointed** **attorney has** **filed Appellant's** **Brief pursuant** **to Anders** **v. California,** **386 U.S.** **738 (1967).** **Appellant asks** **this court** **to provide** **him access** **to the** **appellate record** **so that** **he may** **review the** **record in** **drafting his** **pro se** **brief explaining** **what issues** **he thinks** **may be** **raised in** **this appeal.** **WHEREFORE, PREMISES** **CONSIDERED, appellant** **RICARDO ROGER** **MORALES prays** **that after** **review of** **this motion** **and any** **response filed** **by the** **State of** **Texas, this** **court grant this** **motion and** **grant Mr.** **Morales pro** **se access** **to the appellate** **record in** **this appeal.** **Respectfully submitted,** 

### Ricardo**Roger Morales,** **Appellant TDCJ#** **1922160 Michael** **Unit 2664** **FM 2054** **Tennessee Colony,** **Texas 75886** **Certificate of** **Service**

### hereby**certify that** **true copy** **of this** **document was** **served by** **first**

### class**U.S. mail** **upon the** **25"1 Judicial** **District Attorney's** **Office, 211** **W. Court** **Street, Suite** **260, Seguin,** **Texas 78155** **on December** **J2_, 20'4-** **Certification of** **Compliance**

### According**to the** **WordPerfect program** **used to** **create this** **document, there** **are 237** **words in** **this document.** 

### ,0
August 2023

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Irrigation and Drainage Tailwater Recovery

(Code 447) 

An irrigation and drainage tailwater recovery system is a

system in which all facilities utilized for the collection,

storage, and transportation of irrigation tailwater, rainfall

runoff, field drain water, or a combination thereof for reuse

have been installed. 

Practice Information 

Tailwater recovery involves the collection of recoverable irrigation runoff, rainfall runoff, and/or field

drain water and is applied to conserve irrigation water supplies, reduce energy use, and/or improve

offsite water quality. It applies to systems where recoverable irrigation runoff, subsurface drainage

outflows, or rainfall runoff water can be anticipated under current or expected management practices. 

Facilities are needed to store the collected water and to convey water from the storage facility to a

point of entry back into the irrigation system. Additional storage may be required to provide adequate

retention time for the breakdown of chemicals in the runoff water or to provide for sediment deposition.

Allowable retention times are specific to the particular chemicals used. Seepage from a storage facility

is controlled using natural soil or commercial liners, soil additives, or other approved methods when

chemical-laden waters are stored. Protection of system components from storm events and excessive

sedimentation are also considered in the planning and design of a system. 

Irrigation and drainage tailwater recovery systems require maintenance over the expected life of the

practice. 

Common Associated Practices 

NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) Irrigation and Drainage Tailwater Recovery (Code 447)

is commonly applied with other conservation practices such as NRCS CPSs Pumping Plant (Code

533), Irrigation Ditch Lining (Code 428), Pond Sealing or Lining - Geomembrane or Geosynthetic Clay

Liner (Code 521), Drainage Water Management (Code 554), and Irrigation Water Management (Code

449). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.