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

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                 233
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         8816
<ALLOWANCES>                                           267
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      9125
<PP&E>                                                7487
<DEPRECIATION>                                        3780
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       12913
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 5640
<BONDS>                                                381
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                38
<OTHER-SE>                                            6854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         12913
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     55301
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        45273
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      8509
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        93
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       1176
<INCOME-TAX>                                           470
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    706
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .19
                                               


</TABLE>
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 68 

Designating April 5, 2019, as ‘‘Gold Star Wives Day’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2019 

Mr. BURR (for himself and Mr. MANCHIN) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating April 5, 2019, as ‘‘Gold Star Wives Day’’. 

Whereas the Senate honors the sacrifices made by the 

spouses and families of the fallen members of the Armed 

Forces of the United States; 

Whereas Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. represents the 

spouses and families of the members and veterans of the 

Armed Forces of the United States who have died on active duty or as a result of a service-connected disability; 

Whereas the primary mission of Gold Star Wives of America, 

Inc. is to provide services, support, and friendship to the 

spouses of the fallen members and veterans of the Armed 

Forces of the United States; 

Whereas, in 1945, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. was organized with the help of Eleanor Roosevelt to assist the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 68 IS 

families left behind by the fallen members and veterans 

of the Armed Forces of the United States; 

Whereas the first meeting of Gold Star Wives of America, 

Inc. was held on April 5, 1945; 

Whereas April 5, 2019, marks the 74th anniversary of the 

first meeting of Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.; 

Whereas the members and veterans of the Armed Forces of 

the United States bear the burden of protecting the freedom of the people of the United States; and 

Whereas the sacrifices of the families of the fallen members 

and veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States 

should never be forgotten: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates April 5, 2019, as ‘‘Gold Star 

3 Wives Day’’; 

4 (2) honors and recognizes— 

5 (A) the contributions of the members of 

6 Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.; and 

7 (B) the dedication of the members of Gold 

8 Star Wives of America, Inc. to the members 

9 and veterans of the Armed Forces of the United 

10 States; and 

11 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

12 to observe Gold Star Wives Day to promote aware13 ness of— 

14 (A) the contributions and dedication of the 

15 members of Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 68 IS 

1 to the members and veterans of the Armed 

2 Forces of the United States; and 

3 (B) the important role that Gold Star 

4 Wives of America, Inc. plays in the lives of the 

5 spouses and families of the fallen members and 

6 veterans of the Armed Forces of the United 

7 States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### Richard COZZAGLIO v. STATE of Arkansas

692 S.W.2d 251

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered July 15, 1985

*473
      *Darrell E. Baker, Jr.,*Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Richard Cozzaglio, by his attorney, has filed for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, Darrell E. Baker, Jr., admits that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our per curiam opinion dated February 5, 1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964.

A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Smith and Dudley, JJ., not participating.
Exhibit
32.2




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 on Form 10-Q of Acorn Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
Barth, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.








/s/Michael Barth


Michael
Barth


Chief
Financial Officer


May 14,
2009
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Lorie Ann Bodfield,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:18-cv-536

Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the court for consideration of the March

13, 2019, report and recommendation of the United States magistrate

judge to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b). 

The magistrate judge recommended that the plaintiff’s statement of

errors be overruled, and that the decision of the Commissioner be

affirmed.

The report and recommendation specifically advised the parties

that failure to object to the report and recommendation within

fourteen days “will result in a waiver of the right to de novo

review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the

judgment of the District Court.” Doc. 20, p. 31. The time period

for filing objections to the report and recommendation has expired,

and no party has objected to the report and recommendation.

The court adopts the report and recommendation of the

magistrate judge (Doc. 20). Plaintiff’s statement of errors is

overruled, and the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed. The

clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the Commissioner. 

It is so ordered.
Date: March 29, 2019 s/James L. Graham 

 James L. Graham

 United States District Judge 

2
Texas Unmanned Aerial Systems

www.tuasystems.com

Mission Statement

Texas Unmanned Aerial Systems (TUAS) is dedicated to provide UAS quality professional

services to with safety first and foremost for Public and Private entities and individuals that

have a need for aerial services. TAUS provides these services in a safe and secure manner

at an affordable cost. TUAS and staff strictly follows federal, state, and local laws and

regulations with all licenses, certifications and insurance required for operations. We do this

with the latest technology and with safety trained experienced and qualified personnel.

Donald G. Laffere: Director Sales and Marketing

Mr. Laffere has a background and past work history in Agriculture, Real Estate,Water Utility and

Oil & Gas. He is also a licensed Texas Real Estate Broker. Mr. Laffere holds a of Science degree

in Agriculture Economics from Texas State University and also holds the Eagle designation from

the BSA. He is also an elected member of the Edwards Aquifer Authority Board of Directors

representing western Uvalde County.

Kent A. Cunningham: Director of Operations

Military Pilot, F­111, Air Transport Pilot rating, BS Computer Science, USC Graduate Safety

School (Safety Program Management), trained and experienced aircraft accident investigator,

Chief Flight Safety 48

th Tactical Fighter Wing, RAF Lakenheath England.

Thiess Cunningham: Chief Pilot

Thiess Cunningham is a certified flight instructor, multi ­ instrument commercial pilot, and a

physics professor for lone star college. B.S., M.S. Physics Texas State University, A.A.S.

Aeronautical Technology San Jacinto College, CFI.

John Pettit: Legal Counsel

Attorney at Law
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              7
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                           1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   685,277
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                        0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          0
<EQUITIES>                              16,271
<MORTGAGE>                                   0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                         636,320
<CASH>                                   8,332
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                       7,519
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                  32,871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,246,407
<POLICY-LOSSES>                        638,073
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                    186,728
<POLICY-OTHER>                               0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                        0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                              0
<COMMON>                                   147
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                             268,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         1,246,407
<PREMIUMS>                             265,989
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                     37,226
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                       1,707
<OTHER-INCOME>                              55
<BENEFITS>                             156,991
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>             67,640
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                    30,540
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         36,689
<INCOME-TAX>                            16,892
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     40,047
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                            40,067
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                             1.36
<RESERVE-OPEN>                         294,393
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                    213,478
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                            0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                      27,626
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                       102,160
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                        373,606
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                  4,479
        






</TABLE>
Ronnie Lee McDaniel, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Mayor Adrian Fenty, 

Defendant. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

JAN 13 2009 

Clerk, u.s. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

09 0070 

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the complaint brought pro se and 

plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court 

is required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, fails to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Plaintiff sues District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty for $10 million in damages 

because he allegedly "refused to mediate and solve [an] issue on his city's police departments," 

that resulted in the deprivation of plaintiff s constitutional rights. CompI. Plaintiff claims that 

Mayor Fenty made a "personal choice" not to act "after numerous contacts." Id. Although a 

District of Columbia official may be held personally liable for depriving an individual of "rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws," 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he must have 

directly participated in the alleged wrongdoing. See Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253, 258 

(D.C. Cir.l993); Meyer v. Reno, 911 F. Supp. 11, 15 (D.D.C.l996) (citing cases); Price v. Kelly, 

847 F. Supp. 163, 169 (D.D.C.l994), affd, 56 F.3d 1531 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs claim 

against Mayor Fenty in his individual capacity based apparently on the alleged wrongful acts of 
D.C. police officers fails as a matter oflaw. 1 See Graham v. Davis, 880 F.2d 1414, 1421 (D.C. 

Cir. 1989) (citing Monell v. Dep't. a/Social Services a/the City a/New York, 436 U.S. 658,691 

(1978)) (defendant cannot be held liable under section 1983 on theories of respondeat superior 

or vicarious liability). The complaint therefore is dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: December ~, 2008 

1 Plaintiff has submitted a separate complaint against District of Columbia Police Chief 

Cathy L. Lanier, which the Court will permit to go forward. 

2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00326

- CV

Zulema J. GARZA

, Appellant

v.

Zulema J. GARZA , Jose Juan Garza, II, Andres Garza, Alejandro Garza, and Gabriel Garza, Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- CVK

- 002209

- D1 Honorable Joe Lopez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due by July 11, 2022, but it was not filed. On July 29, 2022, we ordered the court reporter to file the record by August 24, 2022. On September 1, 2022, the court reporter filed a notification of late record, requesting an extension until September 12,

2022. After consideration, we grant the court reporter’s request for an extension, and we order the court reporter to file the record by September 12, 2022.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of September, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SERGHEI VERLAN, 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cr-109-2 

JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE

ORDER

This cause came before the Court for a Telephone Status Conference on 

February 18, 2022, at 12:45 p.m. before Judge Douglas R. Cole. Counsel for Defendant 

requested a continuance to prepare for trial. Telephone Status Conference set for 

April 7, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. There were no objections to the speedy trial clock being 

tolled through the next status conference. 

Therefore, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the 

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the Defendants in a speedy 

trial, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (B)(i), as failure to grant the continuance 

would prevent Defendant’s counsel from adequately preparing for trial, and thus 

would likely lead to a miscarriage of justice. Based on the foregoing, the Court 

GRANTS the continuance and also finds the period of time elapsing from February 

18, 2022, until April 7, 2022, is properly, and shall be, excluded from the speedy trial 

calculation. 

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 224 Filed: 02/18/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1409
2 

SO ORDERED.

February 18, 2022

DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case: 1:18-cr-00109-DRC Doc #: 224 Filed: 02/18/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1410
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Global Perspective Portfolio L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
by references to such financial instruments.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      22,125,404
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  217,723<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,902,010<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,902,010<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,342,967<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               622,394
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,720,573
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,720,573
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,720,573
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include receivable from DWR of $135,454 and interest
receivable of $82,269.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net unrealized
gain on open contracts of $1,490,737, and net option premiums of $68,146.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $371,216, accrued brokerage
commissions of $99,380, accrued management fees of $59,414, accrued
administrative expenses of $28,168 and accrued transaction fees and
costs of $8,588.
<F4>Total revenues include realized trading revenue of $2,699,303, net
change in unrealized of $414,364 and interest income of $229,300.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-14-00219- CV

Janet De nise Stuckey, App ellant

v. John S tuckey, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 126 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 13- 0023 51, H ONO RAB LE JO HN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESI DING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant’s brief was due on J une 4, 2014. On J une 13, 20 1 4 , this Court notified ap p el l an t t hat her brief was overdue and that a failure to respond by J une 23, 2014, could re s u l t in the dismiss al of this appea l for want of prosec ution
. T o d at e, ap pellant has not filed a brief or a motion for extension of time. Accor dingly , we dismiss this a ppeal f or wa nt of prosec ution. See Tex. R. App. P . 38.8(a) ; 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore J ustices Puryear , Pemberton, and F ield Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Jul y

24, 20142
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: DAVOL, INC./C.R. BARD, INC.,

POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA MESH PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2846

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO −118)

On August 2, 2018, the Panel transferred 50 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Ohio for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

See 316 F.Supp.3d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2018). Since that time, 367 additional action(s) have been transferred to

the Southern District of Ohio. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the

Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the

actions previously transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and assigned to Judge Sargus.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,

the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the Southern District of Ohio

for the reasons stated in the order of August 2, 2018, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the

Honorable Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed 7 days from

the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7−day period,

the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

Tiffaney D. Pete

Clerk of the Panel

Case MDL No. 2846 Document 824 Filed 09/07/23 Page 1 of 2

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 780 Filed: 09/07/23 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 8871
IN RE: DAVOL, INC./C.R. BARD, INC.,

POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA MESH PRODUCTS

LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2846

SCHEDULE CTO−118 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

SOUTH CAROLINA

SC 2 23−04018 Evans v. CR Bard Inc et al

Case MDL No. 2846 Document 824 Filed 09/07/23 Page 2 of 2

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 780 Filed: 09/07/23 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 8872