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

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>  1000
       
<CAPTION>
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                              0
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                   49049
<ALLOWANCES>                     2341
<INVENTORY>                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                47890
<PP&E>                           9453
<DEPRECIATION>                   5654
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  55235
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           35086
<BONDS>                             0
<COMMON>                          100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                      16749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    55235
<SALES>                         28534
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                28534
<CGS>                           21654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   21654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 4833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  1793
<INCOME-TAX>                      717
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              1076
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                     1076
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .12
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

                      ALMOST FAMILY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2003

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                     <C>

Subsidiaries of Almost Family, Inc.
    Adult Day Care of America, Inc.                     Adult Day Care of Louisville, Inc.
    Adult Day Care of Maryland, Inc.                    HouseCalls, Inc.
    Adult Day Clubs of America Joint Venture, Ltd.      HHJC Holdings, Inc.
    National Health Industries, Inc.
    Pro-Care Home Health of Broward, Inc.


Subsidiaries of National Health Industries, Inc.
    Freelife Medical Equipment,  Inc.                   Caretenders Homecare, Inc.
    Caretenders Infusion of Birmingham, Inc.            Caretenders of Birmingham, Inc.
    Caretenders of Boston, Inc.                         Caretenders of Cincinnati, Inc.
    Caretenders of Columbus, Inc.                       Caretenders of Elizabethtown, Inc.
    Caretenders of Indiana, Inc.                        Caretenders of Indianapolis, Inc.
    Caretenders of Lincoln Trail, Inc.                  Caretenders of Louisville, Inc.
    Caretenders of New Jersey, Inc.                     Caretenders of Northern Kentucky, Inc.
    Caretenders of Richmond, Inc.                       Caretenders of the Bluegrass, Inc.
    Caretenders Visiting Services of Richmond, Inc.     House Calls of America, Inc.
    Caretenders Infusion Corp.                          Metro Home Care, Inc.
    National Orthopedic & Rehabilitation Services, Inc. Physician Affiliates, Inc.
    Special Healthcare Services, Inc.                   Reliable Home Healthcare, Inc.
    Caretenders Visiting Services of Cincinnati, Inc.   Caretenders of Cleveland, Inc.
    Caretenders Visiting Services of Columbus, Inc.     Caretenders of Fort Lauderdale, Inc.
    Caretenders of Evansville, Inc.                     Caretenders of West Palm Beach, Inc.
    Caretenders Visiting Services of Indianapolis, Inc. Caretenders of Charlotte, Inc.
    Caretenders Visiting Services of Southwest FL, Inc. Caretenders of Southwest Florida, Inc.
    Caretenders Visiting Services of Southeast FL, Inc.

Subsidiary of HHJC Holdings, Inc.
    Home Health of Jefferson County, Inc.               Caretenders of Marshall County, Inc.
</TABLE>
Learn more at www.nationalguard.mil

Current as of August 2022 Point of Contact: NGB Public Affairs at (703) 607-2612

Potential Missions:

• Graduated Response

• Crowd Management

• De-escalation of Force

• Deployment of Non-lethal weapons

• Employ Control Force Formations

• Employment of Handheld 

 Communications Devices

Unique Capabilities:

• Crowd Control Support Modules - 

 Personal protective gear (face 

 shields, body shields, body armor

 and shin guards) 

• TASERS, Oleoresin Capsicum

 Spray and batons

• Logistically self-sustaining for up

 to 72 hours

• XL200P Radios (KT) 

National Guard Reaction Force

Mission: 

The National Guard Reaction Force (NGRF) is comprised of Soldiers and 

Airmen from existing NG units to provide a rapid response capability focused 

on incidents requiring law enforcement or security support.

The NGRF is a next-operational-period capability utilizing both full-time and 

drill status guardsmen. They are designed to respond to emergency events 

with ~20% of available NGRF personnel and equipment within 8 hours and 

the remaining forces in 24-36 hours. 

NGRFs are temporary task forces and perform their mission according to 

laws and regulations of the state / territory where they operate.

Highlights

Critical asset for domestic response and security
<PAGE>

                                     EXHIBIT 11.1
                                           
                              CORVAS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                                           
            STATEMENT REGARDING CALCULATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                        In thousands, except per share amounts
                                           

                                                          Three Months Ended
                                                                March 31,
                                                         -------------------
                                                          1997         1996
                                                          ----         ----
Common and common equivalent shares:

Weighted average shares of common stock                   13,817       11,507
Dilutive effect of common stock equivalents                  330            0
                                                         -------      -------

   Shares used in calculation of net income (loss) per
      common and common equivalent share - primary        14,147       11,507
                                                         -------      -------

Dilutive effect of conversion of preferred shares          1,250            0
                                                         -------      -------

   Shares used in calculation of net income (loss) per
      common and common equivalent share - fully diluted  15,397       11,507
                                                         -------      -------

Net income (loss)                                       $  2,158      $  (631)
                                                         -------      -------
                                                         -------      -------

   Net income (loss) per common and common equivalent
      share - primary                                    $  0.15     $  (0.05)
                                                         -------      -------
                                                         -------      -------

   Net income (loss) per common and common equivalent
      share - fully diluted                              $  0.14     $  (0.05)
                                                         -------      -------
                                                         -------      -------
#### Mumtaz Hussain RIZVI, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General,* Respondent.

No. 02-70969,

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*793Submitted May 10, 2004.**

Decided May 20, 2004.

Mumtaz Hussain Rizvi, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration *&*Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guy-ton, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The docket shall be amended to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the sole respondent.

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Mumtaz Hussain Rizvi, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). *See Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We construe the Petitioner’s appeal liberally because he is pro se, *see Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 676 n. 4 (9th Cir.2004), and review a summary dismissal to determine whether it is appropriate, *Casas-Chavez v. INS,*300 F.3d 1088, 1089 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.

Rizvi’s appeal was appropriately dismissed for failure to file a brief because the contentions contained in his notice of appeal contained nothing more than generalized statements about the impropriety of the Id’s decision. *See Toquero v. INS,*956 F.2d 193, 195 (9th Cir.1992).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 8, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00151

- CR

Steven ROBLES

, Appell ant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR1302 Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal in which it appears he attempts to appeal in two separate and distinct criminal actions against him. The first action arises from a criminal proceeding i n Bexar County, in which appellant is represented by counsel and there is no final judgment or appealable order. The second action arises from a criminal proceeding in federal

court in the Western District of Texas. It appears this Court lacks jurisdictio n in both actions reflected in the notice of appeal.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within ten days of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All appellate

deadlines are suspe nded pending determination whether this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal.

_________________________________ Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of April, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Thundiyil/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 12/13/2011 06:13 PM Subject: FW: E.O. 12866 Meeting on EGU MACT Rule

Hi, Attached is the handout from this meeting.

Regards,
Cortney

-----Original Appointment----- From: Echols, Mabel E. When: Monday, December 12, 2011 1:30 PM-2:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: Room 9104 NEOB

This meeting was requested by Janet Anderson, Van Ness Feldman.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                          50,641
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      765
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,040
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                95,875
<PP&E>                                         107,957
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 150,422
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,160
<BONDS>                                          9,751
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,872
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   150,422
<SALES>                                        102,175
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,175
<CGS>                                           73,419
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,947
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (355)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,277
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,039
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,238
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,238
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52
        

</TABLE>
William MCGEE, a/k/a William Jacques McGee, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1633

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 7, 2018

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Jean Marie Henne, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, CRENSHAW, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Thomas Steve BURKE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3375

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-40856 c/w

No. 09-40859

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOEL MENDOZA-MATA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:09-CR-331-1

USDC No. 1:08-CR-1194-1

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

TheFederalPublic Defender appointed to represent Defendant-Appellant

Joel Mendoza-Mata has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mendoza-Mata has

not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 15, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 09-40856 c/w

No. 09-40859

2

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the consolidated APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 88 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.88
                                         Agreed to June 16, 2022        

                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
          the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR SOAP BOX DERBY RACES.

    (a) In General.--The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association 
(in this resolution referred to as the ``sponsor'') shall be permitted 
to sponsor a public event, soap box derby races (in this resolution 
referred to as the ``event''), on the Capitol Grounds.
    (b) Date of Event.--The event shall be held on June 18, 2022, or on 
such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate jointly designate.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--Under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event shall be--
        (1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and
        (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The sponsor shall assume full 
responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all 
activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

    Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the 
sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, 
sound amplification devices, and other related structures and equipment 
as may be required for the event.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

    The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are 
authorized to make such additional arrangements as may be required to 
carry out the event.

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
a5925473ex10_15.htm


    Exhibit
10.15

    


    


    Mr. Walt
Oliwa

    36 Marton
Drive

    Bedford,
NH  03110

    


    Dear
Walt:

    


    This
letter will confirm the April 4, 2007 agreement between Valpey-Fisher
Corporation (the “Company”) and you concerning a retention bonus payable to you
under certain circumstances.

    


    The
Company and you agree that effective August 7, 2008 the second sentence of the
second paragraph of the Letter Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows:

    


     “As
an incentive for your continued employment with the Company, and
your

       efforts
on  behalf of the strategic alternatives, the Company hereby agrees
to

       pay
you a bonus of one times your current base salary in the event of a
change

       in
control of the Company prior to December 31, 2010.”

    


    The
Company and you agree that effective August 7, 2008 the fourth sentences of the
second paragraph of the Letter Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows:

    


     “The
payment is contingent on your continued employment with the Company

       through,
and immediately following any change in control on or before,

       December
31, 2010.”

    


    Please
indicate your agreement by signing this letter in the space provided
below.

     

     

    
      
        
          
            
              
                
                  
                    	 
      	
                            Sincerely,

                          
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                            VALPEY-FISHER
      CORPORATION

                          
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                            By     

                          	
                            /s/ Ted Valpey, Jr.

                          
	 
      	 
      	
                            Ted
      Valpey, Jr.

                          
	 	 	Chairman


                  

                

              

            

          

        

      

       

       

    

     

    
      AGREED AND
ACCEPTED:

      


      /s/ Walt
Oliwa

      Walt
Oliwa

       

      - 73
-
Shannon GARY v. STATE

CR-15-1425

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
SERVED: JULY 17, 2015 

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC IN THE MATTER OF SOLID EDGE AVIATION, LLC DOCKETNO. FAA-2015-2436 (Civil Penalty Action)

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING ···-· ·. i.J



### This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2015WP910067) has been assigned to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the otherpersons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment
- Service ListSERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 ONE COPY Darryl M. Williams, Respondent's Counsel Baird, Williams & Greer, LLP 6225 North 24th Street, Suite 125 Phoenix,

### AZ 85016 TEL: 602-256-9400 FAX: 602-271-9308 Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel Federal AviationAdministration NorthwestMountainRegion, ANM-7 1601 LindAvenue Southwest Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-2161 FAX: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2015-2436 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was byU.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### 2
James R. LEACH, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1037

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 10, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Gibbons J. ORDER the judgment of conviction REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order."

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Law Offices of Martin Hart, LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'Because we have concluded that relief is warranted on this claim, we need not consider Bass' other contentions.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 94k4(o
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

IN RE: DAVOL, INC//C.R. BARD, Case No. 2:18-md-2846

INC., POLYPROPYLENE HERNIA

MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY

LITIGATION Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

This document relates to:
ALL CASES.

DISCOVERY ORDER NO. 3

Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories
(ECF No. 118); Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition (ECF No. 129); and Defendants’ Reply (ECF
No. 134). For the reasons stated on the record at the April 17, 2019 Case Management Conference,

Defendants’ Motion is DENIED without prejudice. (ECF No. 118).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
4-it=Lo ZX
DATE EDN ‘A. SARGUS, JR.

NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

mA 14 | 014 KZ Oz —

KIMBERLY ASJOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
James VICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-3725

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 23, 2018

James Vice, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.