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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                    <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    JUN-30-1997            JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1997            JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-1997            MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                 2,703,369                      0
<SECURITIES>                                   0                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                          1,658,799                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                           (121,874)                      0
<INVENTORY>                            4,094,824                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       8,435,765                      0
<PP&E>                                 6,404,067                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                       (5,353,782)                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        10,255,114                      0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  2,261,919                      0
<BONDS>                                        0                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0                      0
<PREFERRED>                                    0                      0
<COMMON>                                 202,247                      0
<OTHER-SE>                             7,790,948                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          10,255,114                      0
<SALES>                                2,088,481              7,235,809 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       2,129,928              7,364,773 
<CGS>                                  1,712,315              5,255,176 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          2,607,634              7,981,058 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        66,773                194,638 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (544,479)              (810,924)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (544,479)              (810,924)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                      0
<CHANGES>                                      0                      0
<NET-INCOME>                           (544,479)              (810,924)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.13)                  (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.13)                  (.19) 
        
                                  

</TABLE>
#### State ex rel. Pattison, Respondent, vs. Polley and others, Appellants.

*June 3*

June *18, 1903.*

Judgment affirmed upon an'equal division of the justices of this court participating in the decision.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane county: R. G. Siebecker, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*H. W. Chynoweth*and *S. H.*Watson, for the appellants.

For the respondent there was a brief by Grotophorst, *Evans & Thomas,*and oral argument by *H. H. Thomas.*

Winslow, J.

This is an action of *certiorari*brought against the village board of the village of Lodi for the purpose of reversing the action of the board in allowing certain *431bills presented, by E. G. Fellows and S. H. Watson. It appears by the return that Fellows was marshal of the village and on the 4th of July, 1900, attempted to arrest the relator for violation of an ordinance of the village, and was there after sued by *Pattison*for assault in making such arrest; that the village board employed Watson as attorney to defend Eellows in said action, and that he did defend him successfully; and that the bills allowed were for Watson’s services and disbursements in making such defense, and for amounts necessarily paid by Fellows for witness fees upon the trial. Upon these facts the circuit court concluded that the village of Lodi was not interested in the action of *Pattison v. Fellows,*and could not legally appropriate the moneys of the village to pay the expenses thereof, and reversed the action of the village hoard allowing the claims, and the village board appealed. Mr. Justice Siebecicee, having decided the case while upon the circuit bench, could not participate in the consideration "thereof in this court. Upon consultation of the remaining justices it appears, after full consideration, that two are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, while two are' of opinion that it should be reversed. This being the situation, affirmance necessarily follows.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.

Siebecker, J., took no part.
CALIFORNIA 

AIR 

POLLUTION 

CONTROL 

OFFICERS 

ASSOCIATION 

1107 Ninth Street, Suite 1005 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

(916) 441-5700 (916) 441-5708 FAX 

www.capcoa.org 

October 28, 2015 

Gerardo Rios (Air-3) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

RE: Docket ID No. EPA-R09-0AR-2015-0280 

Dear Mr. Rios: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposal published in the Federal 

Register on August 28, 2015 by the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9 for a 

limited approval and limited disapproval of the Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District (BAAQMD) New Source Review (NSR) rules. The California Air 

Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) is a non-profit association of 

the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air quality agencies throughout 

California. CAPCOA was formed in 1976 to promote clean air and to provide a 

forum for sharing of knowledge, experience, and information among California's 

air quality regulatory agencies and air quality professionals. 

The following comments do not comprehensively address all of the issues raised by 

the EPA's proposal, many of which are likely to be addressed in separate 

comments filed by CAPCOA member agencies, but they do highlight one issue 

where broad agreement was found in the experiences of our member agencies. 

EPA Proposal— Double-Counting of Offsets 

After a facility has already provided offsets for its Potential to Emit (PTE), EPA 

proposes to require additional offsets based on an actual-to-potential calculation, 

even if there is no increase in PTE. 

Example: Take a peaker plant with a PTE of 100 tpy. It provides 100 tpy of offsets 

when first permitted, but it may have actual emissions of only 10 tpy, given its 

usage profile. If it makes a modification that does not increase PTE at all, EPA 

would still require an additional 90 tpy of offsets, based on an actual-to-potential 

calculation. If it makes a modification that increases PTE from 100 tpy to 150 tpy, 

EPA would require an additional 140 tpy of offsets, based on an actual-to-potential 

calculation. 
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-0AR-2015-0280 October 28, 2015 

Page 2 of 2 

CAPCOA Engineering Managers Comments 

• Requiring additional offsets (greater than what a facility will actually emit under worst-case 

scenarios) is not required to ensure that regional emissions growth does not interfere with 

Reasonable Further Progress, which is all that Clean Air Act Section 173 requires. 

o BAAQMD's current rule requires offsets to be provided for a facility's PTE. It requires 

additional offsets to be provided only if the facility's PTE is increased (in the amount of the PTE 

increase). 

o Other Districts have similar rules that do not require re-offsetting the same PTE over and over 

again. This requirement goes beyond what is required in section 173 of the Clean Air Act. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity to comment on EPA's proposal. Please let me know if you have 

any questions. 

A 1 

Since 

Chris bpher Collins, Chair 

CAPCOA Engineering Managers Committee
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-25-2000
<CASH>                                           3,194
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,924
<ALLOWANCES>                                       916
<INVENTORY>                                     63,524
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,716
<PP&E>                                         334,955
<DEPRECIATION>                                 138,282
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 479,896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          231,881
<BONDS>                                         46,714
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          100,184
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        28,097
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   479,896
<SALES>                                        240,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               241,747
<CGS>                                          183,204
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  183,204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   214
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,658
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,307
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,641
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,666
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,666
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
<FN>
<F1>EXCLUDES SELLING, GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AS THESE ARE PART OF
5-03(b)(4).
</FN>


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1458

JEFFREY BARRY FISHER; DOREEN A. STROTHMAN; VIRGINIA S. INZER; 

WILLIAM K. SMART; CARLETTA M. GRIER,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

KIMMY R. CATHEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. 

(8:15-cv-01357-GJH)

Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kimmy R. Cathey, Appellant Pro Se. Martin Stuart Goldberg, FISHER 

LAW GROUP, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kimmy R. Cathey seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

remanding this removed action to the state court for lack of 

jurisdiction. With certain exceptions not applicable here, “[a]n 

order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed 

is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) 

(2012). The Supreme Court has limited the scope of § 1447(d) to 

prohibiting appellate review of remand orders based on a defect in 

the removal procedure or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711–12 (1996); see

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012). Here, the remand was based on lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, this court lacks 

jurisdiction to review the district court’s order. We therefore 

deny Cathey leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 2 4

- 00 26 5

- CV

IN RE Geoffrey PAWLACZYK

, Relato r

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 4, 2024

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On March 25 , 2024 , relator filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the trial court. The

trial court forwarded the mandamus petition , and it was received by this court on April 11, 2024.

This court has determined the relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Therefore, the petition for

a writ of mandamus is DENIE D

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8.

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 20

- 439, in the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas, the

Honorable Kirsten B. Cohoon, presiding.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Dotronix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for thefiscal quarter ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William S. Sadler,President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   |   | /s/ William  S. Sadler   |   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |   | William S.  Sadler       |
|   |   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |   | February 12,  2003       |

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 14, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60758

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

EMMANUEL HOBSON, also known as Emmauel Hobson

Defendant - Appellant

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:03-CR-7-ALL-LN

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Emmanuel Hobson appeals from his jury-trial conviction for

being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Hobson argues that the district court

reversibly erred in refusing to grant his motion for a mistrial. 

When questioned on direct examination, the arresting officer

mentioned that Hobson had previously been in jail for house

burglary. Hobson argues that this testimony violated his rights

under Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997),
No. 03-60758

-2-

necessitating a mistrial. The denial of a motion for mistrial is

reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Coveney,

995 F.2d 578, 584 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Juries are presumed to follow the trial court’s

instructions. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540-41

(1993). The mention of the nature of Hobson’s prior conviction

was rendered harmless by the district court’s curative

instructions. See United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 412 n.11

(5th Cir. 1998). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
REF ID:A44608 

C\alnGl'lJUI 

~ 1(ll DI rJIC•&Mll 07 ...U 

(Aftls Clew'al. Q. a . .lll'M1.U, WIC-lle~, 

Aaala'9B\ to tb9 aa.re\UJ ot a.t ... , ¥peeial o,...u .. ) 

"' ... 

tiUl.ne't's a.port. o:t Autit .Pl'llpaN4 'bJ' ~ u • .w. Am, Au41t. ~ ('1) 

i. Ret•naoe 1a .... \o ~tor \b9 "1.neter, la"1._.l 

.-.ouri.Q' "&aJtq, .tl"Oll U. Auietu'i lleanMq rA Dthue, .. ~t. u 

al:lo"n, .. w )i 1'N••••1 19(;0. Iacrlo•tl& are ....._ 1"9JOl"ta ~ ..U' 

peroasnsna "°' 

ro. u. a. knf¥ cl1.-J. ~t ort1 .. , hrt a.or .. Q. -...., 

llt.qlaD4, dat.o4 jl O.a...,. 1959· 

~la Pro:pert.J- Aeaowate, latiGMl. ie0lll'1\Y qn q, 

J'urt Georp Q ...... , 111.l71.u4, tat.el. 13 Sep•• her 1960. 

a. Ot'tS.N ot ,...._t. iie.nicea, *t.ioml Becur1t7 ......,, 

J'or' Georp Q. ....._, MaqlMil, 41ateii 15 • ..._. 1960. 

a. ra. .. ,jomJ deGl&ritf' ••••'• •••t.a an 1.DaerteA vi.Vi ..a 

rep.>rt ot aud.U,. S\Hdl eua DU 1Da1'14e ••'-Ml ot ao\iaa 'MYea or 

to be t.ak8D .. Uill •• :1 • 

j • .llequMt. a GOW of Wb regart ot •u41~ be f01"Wl'M4 to U. 

Ot't'1ce of the .Aa•l•Mlnt .-Oreta17 Gt Jaaf' ... {C.~) . 

.It. fbi• oonupop41a1e .., 'M '9Ql•H.U1-4 upm zwal ~ t.tt.e 

IIMl1HU.n9. 

3 IAala: 

a/• 

c~ ct.::lil l·:/ !\ ;. .. t t.act.~'i 

~-·· 

.,__,_...eclassified and approved for release by NSA on 

0-25-2013 ursuantto E .0. 13526 
REF ID:A44608 

-- - - - - ------------- • . .. 

cc: DIR (less Incls) 41( ~ .AG (less Incls) 

R@ading File (less InCls) 

COMP (2) (less Inola) 

COMP-00 (2)· (leas IDcl.9) 

CCJU»-01 (ltias Incls) 

K/R: Selt-e.xpl.a.nator;y. 

2 

• 

N ll960 

Serial:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------

                                 CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE, LLP


The Board of Directors
The L.S. Starrett Company

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement
on Form S-8 of The L.S. Starrett Company, of our report dated July 30, 1999
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The L.S. Starrett Company for the
year ended June 26, 1999.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
October 29, 1999
e REF ID:A63847 • 

' .:..sr~FORM NO. 84 

Office Memorandum • uNITEn sTATEs GovERNMENT 

~ TQ Director of Training DATE: 21 Jan 58 

li'ROM TBG-2 

sUBJEeT: Proposed Talks by Mr. Friedlllan 

l. Any lectures which Mr. Friedman would like to make should by all means 

be taken advantage of. We are interested, of course, 1n both the unclassified 

and the classified lectures. 

2. I have two suggestions, both of which I feel are :l.mporta.nt: 

a. Any series of lectures should be capab1e of sub-divisi0n. It 

would be awkward, for exampl.e, it the only way we could present the talk on 

World War II would be to go through the f'irst f'ive talks. This becomes even 

more important in the cl.assified series where we will want to divide talks in 

much the same manner as our C/A courses are now divided. 

b. Filmed talks would be far more effective than tape recordings. 

- Not only is the impact greater but it voul.d allow Mr. Fried.nan himself' the 

opportunity to 111ustrate his talks with the various :materials he speaks of 

1n para 3; moreover additional. props could be incorporated. The difference 

between a taped talk with lantern slides and a filmed presentation by 

Mr. ~iedman would certainly be worth the extra cost. 

DA.VID 

,0~0~ D. LOWMAB 

Chief, Analytics Division 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 11-19-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
REF ID:A43980 

. ' • 

OONPfpEN'ftAL 27 March 1961 

MEMORANDUM FOR SENIOR UNITED KINGDOM LIAISON OFFICER 

SUBJECT: Head of Combined Naval Party 

Reference: MOP 1141/01/21 dated 23 March 1961 

cc DIR"· 

D/DIR 

PROD 

PROD-041 

L H iROS"f 

L. H. FROST 

Vice Admtral, USN 

Director 

I 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

EO 3.3(h)(2) 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 10-10-2013 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
• 

\ 

' \ I 

\ 

j 

!i:: M-( ). •lladio lDtallSgouae• 

L~. U.bby/IG'/ 

i. l:iGNuded bol'mith ia tirat dmfi; of t."18 pro~ Zeo?mical am~ .. g..( ). ~ I::molligauce.n 

to CSG!S-U 

2. It 

at 

is mquas1iacl 

tho earliest 

that 

date 

yotlr 

praoticai:lo. 

cG:JZ:IJllts eiJ/cr c~zs be ~ 

PAUL I. IDT 

Lt. Colonel, Signal CDl"PI' 

.Aatins Chiet 

Al"lllJ' Seourity AgenGJ' 

ursuantto E .0. 1352
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         (4,209)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,345
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,295)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,779
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,620
<PP&E>                                       1,174,245
<DEPRECIATION>                               (269,280)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 916,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          301,160
<BONDS>                                         78,504
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         50
<COMMON>                                       296,403
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,048,783
<SALES>                                         23,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,882
<CGS>                                            2,318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               100,268
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (78,704)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (78,704)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (78,704)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (0.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.002)


</TABLE>