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

<ARTICLE>                  5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED   BALANCE  SHEET  AT  SEPTEMBER  30,  1999   (UNAUDITED)   AND  THE
CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1999
(UNAUDITED)  AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>               1,000

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                36,594
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        187,672
<ALLOWANCES>                                          43,667
<INVENTORY>                                           17,682
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     205,997
<PP&E>                                               510,654
<DEPRECIATION>                                       340,935
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       481,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                158,802
<BONDS>                                              399,157
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                  52
<OTHER-SE>                                           (76,721)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         481,290
<SALES>                                              697,701
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     697,701
<CGS>                                                199,424
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        199,424
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      25,376
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    32,305
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       52,661
<INCOME-TAX>                                             400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   52,261
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                          52,261
<EPS-BASIC>                                           1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0.98


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1198 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1198

   To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a provider of a 
  report to the CyberTipline related to online sexual exploitation of 
children to preserve the contents of such report for 180 days, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 22, 2021

 Mr. Gonzalez of Ohio (for himself, Ms. Kuster, Mr. Reschenthaler, and 
 Mrs. McBath) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a provider of a 
  report to the CyberTipline related to online sexual exploitation of 
children to preserve the contents of such report for 180 days, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eliminate Network Distribution of 
Child Exploitation Act'' or the ``END Child Exploitation Act''.

SEC. 2. PRESERVATION OF REPORTS TO CYBERTIPLINE RELATED TO ONLINE 
              SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN.

    Section 2258A(h) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``90 days'' and inserting 
        ``180 days''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) Extension of preservation.--A provider of a report to 
        the CyberTipline may voluntarily preserve the contents provided 
        in the report (including any comingled content described in 
        paragraph (2)) for longer than 180 days after the submission to 
        the CyberTipline for the purpose of reducing the proliferation 
        of online child sexual exploitation or preventing the online 
        sexual exploitation of children.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### State Bank *vs.*Wilborn and Phillips.

Error *to the circuit court of Pulaski.*

The Bankrupt act of 1841, recognized as a constitutional statute, from the general course ot judicial action, and acquiescence, by the courts of the United States,

Action of debt, by the Bank of the State of Arkansas, against Elijah Wilborn and Nelson Phillips, determined in the Pulaski cju> cuit court, at the May term, 1844, before Judge Clendenin.

The action was founded on a note for $350, made to the bank by the defendants on the 4th day of October, 1841, payable at s'ix months.

.The defendants respectively pleaded their discharge as *bankrupts,*under the act of Congress of 1841, since the execution of the note.

*36The plaintiff demurred generally, in short upon the record by •consent, to the pleas. The court overruled the demurrer, and gave judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff brought the case to •this court by writ of error, and assigns as error—

1st, The overruling of the demurrer to the defendant’s pleas.

2d, That the bankrupt law was repugnant to the constitution ,of the United States, and could not warrant the discharge of the .■defendants.

Hempstead, for the plaintiff.

’CummiNs, contra.

Oldham, J.,

delivered the opinion of the-court.

The only question presented by the plaintiff in error, and for which it is insisted that the judgment of the circuit court should be reversed, is whether the bankrupt act of Congress of 1841, is repugnant to the constitution of the United States. Whatever may be the opinion of the individual members composing this court, or whatever might be the decision of the court itself, were it a tribunal owing its existence to that constitution upon which it is said the act of Congress infringes, and the decision should be final and conclusive, under existing circumstances we have but one course to pursue. The validity of the act has been recognized .and certificates of discharge granted to voluntary bankrupts in every State in the Union. It is true that the district court of the United States, for the State of Missouri, did declare the act unconstitutional, and refuse to discharge applicants for bankruptcy under the provisions of the act.. However, that court subsequently conformed its action to that of the other courts of the United States. We therefore feel ourselves precluded from inquiring whether the act in question established such a system of bankruptcy as was contemplated by the framers of the constitution, or whether it is ,at war with the principles of justice, good faith and sound honesty; .but feel constrained upon the authority of .the courts of the Uni-*37tecl States to decide that the act is valid; and therefore that the pleas of the defendants were a good bar to a recovery against them. Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         664,258
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  857,514
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (345,691)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,361,661
<PP&E>                                       7,071,188
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,529,266
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,122,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,791,277
<BONDS>                                     26,353,589
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       133,470
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,672,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,122,125
<SALES>                                        835,995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               835,995
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,039,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,014,416
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (345,691)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,014,416
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,678,849)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,678,849)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (3,678,849)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.55)
        


</TABLE>
----

|  | (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/   Peter Ntephe                |   |
|---------------------------------------------|--------|
| Peter Ntephe                                |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |
| December 22, 2015                           |

----
### Faulk, Scott (OST)
From: Sent: To: Subject: Diane_Mokuau/MOLOKAIH/HIDOE@notes.k12.hi.us Friday, November 22, 2013 12:06 AM EAS (OST) Mokulele
DearDepartment of Transportation (DOT), I am writing to supportMokulele Airline's 4-yearbid to link Kalaupapa to Kahului, Honolulu, Kapalua and Hoolehua. Mokulele is the best candidate as they have lowerfares, experienced friendly agents, frequent flights, multiple islands and ease ofbooking via Global Distribution System (Expedia, Travelocity, Orbitz, Priceline, etc.). It is important we have safe, stable & affordable service to Kalaupapa. Please selectMokulele to serve Kalaupapa for4 years. Diane Mokuau

1
Specimen Common Stock certificate of Manitex International, Inc.



 Exhibit 4.1 
  

	
	



 Exhibit 4.1 
 MNTX 
 MANITEX
INTERNATIONAL, INC. 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 
 COMMON STOCK 
 CUSIP 563420 10 8 
 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS 
 THIS CERTIFIES THAT 
 IS THE OWNER OF 
 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, NO PAR VALUE PER SHARE, OF
MANITEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. 
 transferable on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly
authorized attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate duly endorsed. 
 This Certificate is not valid until countersigned
and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed in facsimile by its duly authorized officers. 
 Dated 
 David H Gransee 
 Chief Financial Officer 
 MANITEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. 
 CORPORATE 
 SEAL 2003 
 MICHIGAN 
 David J. Langevin 
 Chairman of the Board 
 COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED: 
 AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY 
 TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR 
 BY 
 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 
 AMERICAN BANK NOTE COMPANY 
 711 ARMSTRONG LANE 
 COLUMBIA, TENNESSEE 38401 
 (931) 388-3003 
 SALES: JAYNE DICKINSON 706-385-9112 
 7 / LIVE JOBS / M / MANITEX 30123 FC 
 PRODUCTION COORDINATOR CORBIN MATLOCK 931-490-7660

 PROOF OF; MAY 21, 2008 
 MANITEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. 
 TSB 30123 FC 
 OPERATOR: AP 
 Rev. 1 
 PLEASE INITIAL THE APPROPRIATE SELECTION FOR THIS PROOF: 
 OK AS IS 
 OK
WITH CHANGES 
 MAKE CHANGES AND SEND ANOTHER PROOF
Gerald Keith JIMMISON, Jr. v. STATE

CR-15-1179

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Mr. Troy Lamont BURRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mr. T. DOSS, the Superintendent; Mr. Proctor, Major; Mr. Williams, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-6384

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 21, 2017

*110Troy Lamont Burrell, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Troy Lamont Burrell seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing with- • out prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to adequately comply with the magistrate judge’s order directing Burrell to particularize the complaint, and denying Burrell’s motion to alter or amend the judgment. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (20Í2), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-47, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that the orders Burrell seeks to appeal are neither final orders nor appeal-able interlocutory or collateral orders. *Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc.,*807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); *Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993); *see also Bridges v. Dep’t of Md. State Police,*441 F.3d 197, 207 (4th Cir. 2006) (“The denial of reconsideration of a nonappealable order is not a final order”). Accordingly, we deny Burrell leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*

*

 We do not remand this matter to the district court, because the court previously afforded Burrell the opportunity to amend his complaint. *Cf. Goode,*807 F.3d at 629-30.
Testamentary Trust of Kate Frierson BOYD v. James RIVERS

2160210

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00285

- CV

SHAWN PERKINS APPELLANT

V.

CITIBANK, N.A. APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 342ND DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 342

- 275644

- 14

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



### MEMORANDUM OP INION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered appellant ’ s “ Motion F or Voluntary Dismissal W ith

Prejudice .” It is the court ’ s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore,

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 15, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                    5
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
              
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                     40,021
<SECURITIES>                                4,174
<RECEIVABLES>                              25,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           71,580     
<PP&E>                                     14,027
<DEPRECIATION>                              5,685    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            356,189
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      26,267
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                78,822
<COMMON>                                      443
<OTHER-SE>                                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              356,189
<SALES>                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           26,839
<CGS>                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           28,215
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (121)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            12,580
<INCOME-TAX>                                5,253
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         6,138
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                6,138
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               $ .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                               $ .13
        

</TABLE>
Antwan MCNEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2933

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                   |  |                       
|---------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                 |  | STATE OF INCORPORATION
|                                   | 
|Odyssey Marine, Inc.               |  | Florida               
|                                   | 
|Odyssey Marine Services, Inc.      |  | Nevada                
|                                   | 
|OVH, Inc.                          |  | Nevada                
|                                   | 
|Odyssey Retriever, Inc.            |  | Nevada                
|                                   | 
|Odyssey Marine Entertainment, Inc. |  | Nevada
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,158

EX PARTE EZEKIEL JEFFERSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. W199-81907-06 IN THE 199

TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

FROM COLLIN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex

parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of engaging

in organized criminal activity and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends, inter alia, that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he

failed to timely file a notice of appeal or a motion for a new trial, despite Applicant’s expressed

desire to appeal his conviction.

The trial court has determined that trial counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. We

find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the
2

judgment of conviction in Cause No. W199-81907-06 from the 199th Judicial District Court of

Collin County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice

of appeal so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits

shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this

Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take

affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the

mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: June 3, 2009

Do Not Publish
H. R. 1444 

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 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 132 North 

Loudoun Street, Suite 1 in Winchester, Virginia, as the ‘‘Patsy Cline Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PATSY CLINE POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 132 North Loudoun Street, Suite 1 in Winchester, 

Virginia, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Patsy Cline Post 

Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Patsy Cline Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 6895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02465]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review; Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its 
intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The 
purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The 
agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation 
may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. These 
meetings will primarily take place at NSF's headquarters, 2415 
Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
    These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being 
reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, 
including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) 
of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the 
agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.
    These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an 
individual basis in the Federal Register. NSF intends to publish a 
notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of 
the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the 
proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on 
changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF website: 
https://www.nsf.gov/events/advisory.jsp. This information may also be 
requested by telephoning, 703/292-8687.

     Dated: February 2, 2022.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-02465 Filed 2-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P