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

<ARTICLE>5
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                          2,854
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   6,970
<ALLOWANCES>                    (1,504)
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                10,186
<PP&E>                          4,537
<DEPRECIATION>                  (2,237)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  14,339
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           4,339
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        19
<OTHER-SE>                      9,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    14,339
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                5,977
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                6,476
<LOSS-PROVISION>                118
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              17
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (598)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (598)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (611)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .32
        

</TABLE>
Order filed November 17, 2016

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00717-CV

____________

In the Interest of T.A.D., A Child

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-04802J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the 

termination of the parent-child relationship is at issue. Appellant is represented by 

appointed counsel, Donald M. Crane. Appellant’s brief was originally due October 

24, 2016. We granted an extension of time to file appellant’s brief until November 

14, 2016. When we granted this extension, we noted that no further extensions would 

be granted. On November 14, 2016, counsel filed a further request for extension of 

time to file appellant’s brief. To date, counsel has submitted no brief. 

Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be 

brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. 

See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule 
requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines. Therefore, we deny the motion 

and issue the following order.

We order appellant’s appointed counsel Donald M. Crane to file appellant’s 

brief no later than November 28, 2016. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel 

may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. In 

addition, the court may require appointment of new counsel due to the failure to 

timely file appellant’s brief. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Donovan.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">GVS Properties LLC, Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, - <br><br>against<br><br>Elsa Garcia and Teodoros Garcia, Respondents-Tenants-Respondents, - and - "John &amp; Jane Doe," Respondents.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Landlord appeals from (1) an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Verna L. Saunders, J.), dated October 23, 2012, which, among other things, conditionally granted tenants' motion to be restored to possession of the subject premises upon payment to landlord by a date certain of all rent arrears, marshal costs, and attorneys' fees in a nonpayment summary proceeding; and (2) an order (same court and Judge), dated October 24, 2012, which denied landlord's request for a stay of the aforesaid order, directed landlord to accept tenants' tender of arrears and ordered tenants to pay landlord's additional moving and storage costs.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Appeal from orders (Verna L. Saunders, J.), dated, respectively, October 23, 2012 and October 24, 2012, dismissed, without costs. </p><p>In view of landlord's unexplained four-year delay in bringing this appeal, the nature of which dictated a prompt prosecution of an appeal, if any was to be taken from the order granting tenant's posteviction motion to be restored to possession, this court would not be warranted in reviewing the discretionary determination rendered below (<i>see American Sav. Bank v Harmin Prop. Corp</i>., 274 App Div 917 [1948]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: December 06, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 7, 2016

No. 04-16-00424-CV

IN RE RPH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LP

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Relator filed its petition for writ of mandamus on June 30, 2016. This court requested a 

response and ordered oral submission. The court has considered the petition, the response of the 

real party in interest, relator’s reply, and the oral argument of counsel and has determined that 

Relator is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is 

CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c). 

The Honorable Antonia Arteaga is ORDERED to vacate the order granting real parties in 

interest’s motion for summary judgment signed on June 9, 2016 and reinstate the final judgment 

signed on December 14, 2015. The writ will issue only if we are notified that Judge Arteaga has 

not done as directed within fifteen days of the date of this order. 

It is so ORDERED on December 7, 2016.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of December, 2016.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2016-CI-05251, styled Peridot Joint Venture, Millennium Exploration 

Company, LLC, and Richard Monroy v. RPH Capital Partners, LP, pending in the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar 

County, Texas, the Honorable Antonia Arteaga presiding.
Aug. 13, 2015 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11842 ProFly Drones DJI Matrice 100 

This is a request for an amendment to Exemption No. 11842 Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2015–

1148, granted to ProFly Drones. This amendment will provide for the addition of the DJI Matrice 

100 multirotor sUAS aircraft to the inventory of approved aircraft for use during VLOS 

operations currently covered under Exemption 11842. 

These airframes are commercially available to the general public, as are all components used to 

complete them. In addition, all configurations of these components follow standard, wellestablished practices. No aspect of these aircraft is proprietary to ProFly Drones in design or 

manufacture. 

DJI Innovations Model Matrice 100

M100_User_Manual_v1.2__en.pdf (Uploaded to Docket)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         43,076
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               43,076
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 43,076
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          18,932
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,059
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   43,076
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (461)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,855)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,855)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,855)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7085

MICHAEL ANTHONY SMITH, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD MOATS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98-

1912-MJG)

Submitted: October 20, 1998 Decided: November 10, 1998

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Anthony Smith, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Smith v. Moats, No. CA-98-1912-MJG (D. Md.

June 29, 1998). We 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.

DISMISSED
Winter Wheat 2022

Production by County

for Selected States

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

Bushels

Not Estimated

< 250,000

250,000 - 499,999

500,000 - 999,999

1,000,000 - 2,499,999

2,500,000 - 4,999,999

5,000,000 +
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             645                   8,578
<SECURITIES>                                         0                   4,270
<RECEIVABLES>                                      553                     308
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (41)                    (40)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,977                     532
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,500                  13,909
<PP&E>                                           5,161                   3,814
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2,163)                 (1,326)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,283                  17,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,114                   2,300
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        45,910                  45,597
<OTHER-SE>                                     (47,086)                (31,153)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,283                  17,674
<SALES>                                          2,499                   1,261
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,499                   1,261
<CGS>                                            2,962                   2,011
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,962                   2,011
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,786                  11,976
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (296)                   (148)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (16,186)                (12,272)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,186)                (12,272)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION





The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Jiri Nor, the Chief Executive Officer and Anthony Durkacz, the Vice President, Finance of Astris Energi Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and



2.

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Astris Energi Inc.



ASTRIS ENERGI INC.





By: /s/ Jiri K. Nor

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

President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: June 28, 2004





ASTRIS ENERGI INC.





By: /s/ Anthony Durkacz

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

Vice President, Finance

Date: June 28, 2004
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Acrongenomics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Rick Walchuk, CEO and CFO, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: May 12, 2004

By:  /s/ Rick Walchuk

Name:  Rick Walchuk

Title:    Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
AFS-12-512-E October 12, 2012 Exemption No. 8842C Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26746

Mr. David L. Jones Corporate Aviation Education Director

Aviation Institute of Maintenance

4455 South Boulevard Virginia Beach, VA 23452

Dear Mr. Jones:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8842, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated August 22, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Technical Education Services, Inc., d.b.a. Aviation Institute of Maintenance (Aviation Institute) (operating under Air Agency Certificate Q5VT572K) for an extension of Exemption No. 8842, as amended. That exemption from § 65.75(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Aviation Institute to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to students immediately following their successful completion of the general curriculum but before they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons regarding public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register . The requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Aviation Institute.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8842, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8842, as amended, to February 28, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8842 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8842.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43942

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KEITH ALLEN RICHEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 799

Filed: December 1, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr., District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-three years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of five years, for lewd conduct with a minor 

under sixteen, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Keith Allen Richey pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen. I.C. § 18-

1508. The district court sentenced Richey to a unified term of twenty-three years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of five years. Richey appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Richey’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
DENY and Opinion Filed October 18, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00853-CV

IN RE BRADLEY HUBBARD, M.D. AND DALLAS PLASTIC SURGERY 

INSTITUTE, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-03134-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Myers

In this original proceeding, relators seek mandamus relief from the trial 

court’s order striking their retained medical expert but allowing him to testify as a 

non-retained, treating physician. They complain that the order is vague and that the 

trial court abused its discretion by striking their retained expert. Relators further ask 

us to compel the court to rule on their motion for leave to designate a replacement 

retained expert. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that they lack an adequate remedy by appeal. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
–2–

After reviewing the petition and the record before us, we conclude that relators have

failed to demonstrate their entitlement to mandamus relief. 

Regarding relators’ complaint about the order’s vagueness, the record fails to 

show that they raised this error to the trial court. See In re Rowes, No. 05-14-00606-

CV, 2014 WL 2452723, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 30, 2014, orig. proceeding) 

(mem. op.) (“A court cannot grant mandamus relief unless the error was raised in 

the trial court.”). 

As for relators’ contention that the trial court erroneously struck their retained 

expert, they have failed to show that they lack an adequate appellate remedy. See In 

re Flores, No. 05-19-01058-CV, 2020 WL 2847531, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

June 2, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief as to order 

striking expert testimony because relator had adequate remedy by appeal); In re 

Thornton-Johnson, 65 S.W.3d 137, 139 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. 

proceeding) (same). 

Finally, with respect to relators’ argument about the trial court’s failure to 

rule, the record does not contain adequate proof that they brought the pending motion 

to the trial court’s attention and made a demand for a ruling. See In re Blakeney, 254 

S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (“Any such 

mandamus relief must be predicated on an adequate showing that a request for a 

ruling has been properly and adequately presented to the trial court and that the court 

has declined to rule.”).
–3–

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a).

220853f.p05 /Lana Myers//

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3019 

To require the United States Postal Service to designate a single, unique 

ZIP code for particular communities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 20, 2021 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the United States Postal Service to designate 

a single, unique ZIP code for particular communities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ZIP CODES. 

4 Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment 

5 of this Act, the United States Postal Service shall des6 ignate a single, unique ZIP code for, as nearly as prac7 ticable, each of the following communities: 

8 (1) Ocoee, Florida. 

9 (2) Miami Lakes, Florida. 

10 (3) Oakland, Florida. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3019 IS

1 (4) Village of Estero, Florida. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS