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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HOMECOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE NINE-MONTH PERIOD
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,177,677
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  876,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                   219,055
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,835,476
<PP&E>                                         834,115
<DEPRECIATION>                                 227,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,723,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          873,606
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           295
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,604,797
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,723,473
<SALES>                                         62,598
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,330,975
<CGS>                                           52,294
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,026,174
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,222,361
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               194,894
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,387,747)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,387,747)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,387,747)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.36)


</TABLE>
1 

### Moran, Nicole

From: William Bider <wbider@kdheks.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:47 AM To: Toensing, Don; Moran, Nicole; Callier, James Cc: Gary Mason; John Mitchell; Dennis Degner; Christine Mennicke; Darian Dernovish Subject: Kansas Part 256 CCR Solid Waste Management Plan Attachments: Draft Part 256 CCR Plan 2015-06-30.pdf

Don,

In accordance with your e-mail dated June 24, 2015 sent in response to my earlier request for EPA’s “p reliminary
review” of the Kansas Part 256 CCR solid waste mana gement plan, I am submitting our DRAFT plan for rev iew by EPA. The preliminary review is being requested for two purposes: (1) to receive initial feedback from EPA before KDHE initiates the required public participation process ; and (2) to facilitate a prompt review and approva l by EPA after KDHE completes the public participation process. It is KDHE’s goal to receive EPA approval of the plan bef ore the effective date of the first CCR regulations (October 19, 2015 ). We realize this is an optimistic goal, but we b elieve it is doable and beneficial with respect to assessing and ensuring c ompliance with the regulations.

A pdf copy of the Kansas plan is attached for your review. Since neither KDHE nor EPA could find an o riginal Kansas Part 256 solid waste management plan, we prepared a plan that addresses all relevant issues required in the original plans in addition to the Kansas approach to administering a compliance and enforcement program for the new fede ral CCR regulations. The plan explains the regulatory appr oach in detail. It will include both modified enfo rceable permits and permit documents that incorporate all CCR regulatio ns to be followed by the adoption of the CCR regula tions by reference. Right from the first effective date (Oc tober 19, 2015), KDHE will have regulatory authorit y to enforce these regulations through existing permits and associated permit documents such as facility operating plans.

KDHE is asking EPA for an initial overall assessmen t of the Kansas plan from a content perspective. D oes the plan include all information that is necessary for appro val? Based upon your early feedback, we will initi ate the public participation process leading to adoption of the pl an. Following adoption, hopefully with few if any changes, the final plan will be submitted to EPA so you can officially complete your review.

As you review the DRAFT plan more thoroughly, pleas e provide us with any comments you may have that co uld be incorporated into our final plan. If at any time d uring your preliminary review, you would like a mee ting to discuss the plan, we would be happy to come to your offices to facilitate the process. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you for your willingness to review the Kansas plan following this approach to facilitate early a pproval.

Bill Bider

Director Bureau of Waste Management (785) 296-1612
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

K.W.

v.

S.L. & M.L.

v.

G.G.

PETITION OF: S.L. & M.L.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 49 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of May, 2017, the Application for Nunc Pro Tunc Relief is 

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3663 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3663

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 2009

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to delay the date on 
which the accreditation requirement under the Medicare Program applies 
     to suppliers of durable medical equipment that are pharmacies.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF MEDICARE DME ACCREDITATION DEADLINE FOR CERTAIN 
              PHARMACIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1834(a)(20)(F)(i) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(20)(F)(i)) is amended by inserting before the 
semicolon the following: ``, except that the Secretary shall not 
require under this clause pharmacies to obtain such accreditation 
before January 1, 2010''.
    (b) Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed as 
affecting the application of an accreditation requirement for 
pharmacies to qualify for bidding in a competitive acquisition area 
under section 1847 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-3).

            Passed the House of Representatives September 30, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOVITA C ER

VANTEZ-SANC HEZ, Pe titioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 13-71928 Age n c y No. A090-538-113 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d April 22, 2015 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, B YB EE, a nd C HRISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Jovita C e rvante z -Sanc he z , a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing he r m o tion to re ope n de porta tion proc e e d ings. W e have jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e 

# F IL ED APR 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re vie w for a

buse of disc re t ion thede nia l of a m otion to re o pe n, Mohamme d v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2005), a nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing C e rva nte z -Sanc he z ’ s m otion a s untim e ly , whe re it wa s file d 18 y e ars a fte r the orde r of de porta tion be c a m e fina l, and she ha s not e s ta

blishe d that a

ny sta t utory or re g ulatory

e xc e ption a

pplie s. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2) (a m otion to re o pe n a

n orde r of de porta

tion m ust be file d within 90 da

y s a fte r the date on whic h the fina l a dm inistra tive de c ision wa s re nde re d in theproc e e ding sought to be re ope ne d, or on or be fore Se pte m be r 30, 1996, whic he ve r is la

t e r); 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(3) (se tting forth e xc e ptions to the filing de a dline for m otions to re ope n); 8 C .F.R . § 243.1 (1995) (a n orde r of de porta tion be c om e s fina l upon dism issa l of a n a ppe a l by the B IA). In light of our disposition, we do not re a c h C e rvante z -San c he z ’ s re m a ining c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 3 - 7 1 9 2 8 2
<PAGE>

                                                        EXHIBIT 32.1


             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 Technology Funding Venture Partners V, An
Aggressive Growth Fund, L.P. (the Partnership) Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I Charles, R. Kokesh,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and
Chairman of Technology Funding Inc. and Managing General Partner of
Technology Funding Ltd., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as added Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Partnership as of
and for the period covered by the Report.

Date:  August 17, 2005     By:  /s/Charles R. Kokesh
                               --------------------------------
                                     Charles R. Kokesh
                                     President, Chief Executive
                                     Officer, Chief Financial
                                     Officer and Chairman of
                                     Technology Funding Inc. and
                                     Managing General Partner of
                                     Technology Funding Ltd.

Technology Funding Venture Partners V, L.P.
(a Delaware limited partnership)

Page 1 of 1
Heath Morton Heather Morton Eye In The Sky Aerial Photography 76 Tanager Court Chillicothe, Ohio 45601

Federal Aviation Administration:

Specific Sections in which Eye In The Sky Aerial Photography is seeking an exemption: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR EXEMPTION OF: EYE IN THE SKY AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY FOR AN EXEMPTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TI TLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERAT ION OF DJI P HANTOM 3 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MONDERNIZATION ANDREFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112

- 95)

Extent of relief and our reason for seeking relief: In order to use our Unmanned Aircraft Systems for commercial use. We are seeking this exemption in order to legally conduct business and comply with all Federal regulations and standards put forth by the FAA while operating our Unmanned Aircraft Systems.

How our request would benefit the public as a whole: Granting the petition for Eye In The Sky Aerial Photography would allow for us to be able to efficiently, legally, economically, and safely perform aerial video and photography of special events, sporting events, land survaillance, real estate, commercial inspections, and commercial maintenance over certain areas of these United States. Using Unmanned Aircraft Systems such as drone technology would greatly reduce negative impacts on the environment and al so provide a safer alternative for businesses to conduct land and equipment inspections.

Reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing rule: By adhering to gui de lines set forth by the FAA we would not be going above the recommended altitude nor flying at night therefore avoiding any hazardous accidents such as colliding with a manned aircraft. W e will also be regularly test flying and doing daily maintenance logs to ensure the quads are in proper working order for each job or event as to prevent damage or bodily injury.
Summary to publish in the Federal Register stating

-- 1. SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF TI TLE 14 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTIONS 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b) CONCERNING COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF DJI PHANTOM 3 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO SECTION 333 OF THE FAA MONDERNIZATION AND REFORM ACT OF 2012 (PUBLIC LAW 112

- 95) 2. We are seeking exemption in order to use our UAS for commercial use.

Submitted on March 16
, 2016 by: Heath Morton Heather Morton Eye In The Sky Aerial Photography 76 Tanager Court Chillicothe, Ohio 45601
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 21

- 1937

________________
JOSEPH LAPORTE, Appellant

v.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; POLICE OFFICER KEENAN;
OFFICER BUTLER

_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 2

- 20

- cv

- 03920)

________________

O RDER AMENDING

________________

The opinion and judgment entered on April 21, 2023 erroneously identified the

Honorable Gene E.K. Pratter as the District Court judge. An amended opinion and judgment shall be entered listing the Honorable Gerald J. Pappert as the lower court judge. As this correction is not substantive in nature, the filing dates for the opinion and judgment will n ot be altered.

For the Court,

s/ Patricia S. Dodszuweit

Clerk

Date: April 26, 2023

T mm/ cc: Adrian R. Reid, Esq. Meghan Byrnes, Esq.
Jane L. Is tvan, Esq.
EX- 4.8



 Exhibit 4.8 
 The first amendment to the Tower Lease Agreement between PT Indosat Tbk (“Indosat”) and PT XL Axiata Tbk (“XL”), No.Indosat: 467/C00-C0DA/LGL/12 – No. XL:
A1-2078.A/XXVII.A.6169/XL/V/2010 dated February 1, 2012. 
 The Parties: 

 

	1.	PT Indosat Tbk; and 

  

	2.	PT XL Axiata Tbk 

 Scope of The
Amendment: 
 Indosat and XL agreed to add two (2) documents for invoicing requirements, which are the acceptance form and real
estate slip. 
 Period of Amendment: 
 This Agreement is valid as of January 1, 2012.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                       8,828,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,741,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   132,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,490,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,749,000
<PP&E>                                      18,868,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,516,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,361,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,316,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,598,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,361,000
<SALES>                                     21,201,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,201,000
<CGS>                                        8,181,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,181,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            15,464,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,935,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (658,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,277,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (3,555,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,832,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.42)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered April 25, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00052-CV

HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL., Appellants

V.

ALI GANJAEI, Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-20539

ORDER

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order granting appellee’s special 

appearance. Subsequently, the trial court, on March 21, 2022, signed an order 

partially striking appellee’s special appearance and appellants’ brief was filed with 

that order in place. The trial court has now indicated that the March 21 order was 

signed in error and it intends to vacate it. 

Before the Court is the parties’ April 20, 2022 corrected joint motion to 

suspend the briefing schedule and for leave for appellants to file an amended brief. 
We GRANT the motion as follows. We SUSPEND the deadline for appellee’s 

brief. We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file, WITHIN 

TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing either the trial court’s order vacating its March 21 order or written 

verification that no such order exists. Should we receive a supplemental clerk’s 

record with the trial court’s order vacating the March 21 order, appellants shall file 

an amended brief within ten days of the filing the supplemental clerk’s record. 

Should we receive written confirmation that no such order exists, appellee shall file 

its brief within ten days of the filing of the supplemental clerk’s record.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the 

Honorable Gena Slaughter, Presiding Judge of the 191st Judicial District Court; 

Ms. Pitre; and, all parties.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 8

- 00 054

- C V



### ____________________

JEFFREY D. WESTBROOK

, Appellant

V.

DAVID A. DOUGHTY, FRANKIE L. RESCANO, SANDRA R. JOHNSON

AND ANITA R. BREAUX , Appellee s

________________________________________ _______________ ______________

On A ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 129046

________________________________________ ________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jeffrey D. Westbrook appealed from a ju dgment signed January 8, 2018 . On

May 29 , 2018, we noti fied the parties that the clerk’ s record had not been filed due

to the appellant’ s failure to pay or, to arrange to pay the District C lerk’s fee for

p reparing the clerk’ s record. Further, the notice warned Westbrook that the appeal

would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless a response was filed by June 28

,

2018. Westbrook filed a response on June 11, 2018.2

T he trial court denied Westbrook’ s clai m of indigence on January 10, 2017,

approximately one year before the trial court signed the order that is the subject of

this appeal

. Westbrook did not challenge the order within ten days of the date it was

signed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(g)(2). The clerk responsible for preparing the record

in this appeal informed the C ourt that Westbrook did not arrange to pay for the

record. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a).

There being no satisfactory explanation fo r the failure to file the clerk’ s

record, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b);

see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

A PPEAL DISMISS ED.

________________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

Submitted on June 27, 2018

Opinion Delivered June 28, 2018

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
Sorghum for Grain 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 - 1,999,999

2,000,000 - 2,999,999

3,000,000 +
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1831** 

BRIAN L. DAVIS , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. HAMPTON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT/SPECIAL EDUCATION , Defendant

– Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News
. Rebecca Beach Smith , District Judge. ( 4:10

- cv - 00084

- RBS

- TEM )

Submitted : September 28, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un pub lished per curiam opinion
. Brian L. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 P ER CURIAM: Brian L. Davis appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his federal action against the Hampton Public Schoo l District
. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s judgment
. Davis v. Hampton Pub. Sch. Dist./Special Educ. , No. 4 : 10

- cv 00084

- RBS

- TEM (E.D. Va. July 19 , 20 10 ). We dispense with oral
argume nt because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED