alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
               
<ARTICLE>               5
                                
<S>                                        <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                     987,949
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,147,914
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         2,790,350
<PP&E>                                  48,253,185
<DEPRECIATION>                          16,990,696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          34,286,285
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    2,069,104
<BONDS>                                  4,950,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    45,174
<OTHER-SE>                              15,460,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            34,286,285
<SALES>                                  5,115,677
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         5,289,231
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,672,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           153,286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         131,961
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            491,031
<INCOME-TAX>                               147,327
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        343,704
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               343,704
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .08
        
                            

</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1278 

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to establish minimum 

notification requirements for voters affected by polling place changes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2021 

Mr. ALLRED (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. NORTON, Ms. SEWELL, and Mr. FOSTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to establish 

minimum notification requirements for voters affected 

by polling place changes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Know Your Polling 

5 Place Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1278 IH

1 SEC. 2. MINIMUM NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR VOT2 ERS AFFECTED BY POLLING PLACE 

3 CHANGES. 

4 (a) REQUIREMENTS.—Section 302 of the Help Amer5 ica Vote Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 21082) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub7 section (e); and 

8 (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol9 lowing new subsection: 

10 ‘‘(d) MINIMUM NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR

11 VOTERS AFFECTED BY POLLING PLACE CHANGES.— 

12 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If a State assigns an indi13 vidual who is a registered voter in a State to a poll14 ing place with respect to an election for Federal of15 fice which is not the same polling place to which the 

16 individual was previously assigned with respect to 

17 the most recent election for Federal office in the 

18 State in which the individual was eligible to vote— 

19 ‘‘(A) the State shall notify the individual of 

20 the location of the polling place not later than 

21 7 days before the date of the election; or 

22 ‘‘(B) if the State makes such an assign23 ment fewer than 7 days before the date of the 

24 election and the individual appears on the date 

25 of the election at the polling place to which the 

26 individual was previously assigned, the State 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1278 IH

1 shall make every reasonable effort to enable the 

2 individual to vote on the date of the election. 

3 ‘‘(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection shall 

4 apply with respect to elections held on or after Janu5 ary 1, 2022.’’. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 302(e) of 

7 such Act (52 U.S.C. 21082(f)), as redesignated by sub8 section (a), is amended by striking ‘‘Each State’’ and in9 serting ‘‘Except as provided in subsection (d)(2), each 

10 State’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 Date:  August 6, 2009
    /s/  Christopher T. HutterChristopher T. HutterVice President, Chief Financial
Officer,Treasurer and Assistant
Secretary
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-50924 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE FREDY MARTINEZ-ZELAYA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-00-CR-322-ALL-WWJ

- - - - - - - - - - June 15, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Fredy Martinez-Zelaya appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Martinez argues that his sentence should not have exceeded the two-year maximum sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Martinez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000).No. 00-50924 - 2 - Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 121 S. Ct. 1214 (2001). Martinez’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. at 235. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is granted.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          31,283
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  249,541
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,765
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               326,881
<PP&E>                                         194,799
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,263
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 989,872
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          158,122
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       380,916
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,793
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   989,872
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               535,562
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  475,425
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,429
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,761
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,947
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,765
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,182
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,182
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

April 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 132621 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 132621 

 COA: 269369 
 Wayne CC: 73-000313

THOMAS BONDS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 11, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d0416 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 24, 2007 

 Clerk
<PAGE>   1


                                                                          Exh.23



                        Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-17030) pertaining to the 1986 Stock Option Plan of Duramed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and in the Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No.
33-68676, No. 33-24122 , No. 33-30716 and No. 333-17259) pertaining to the 1988
Stock Option Plan of Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-684746) pertaining to the Stock Option Plan for
non-employee directors and in the Registration Statement (Forms S-3 No. 87948,
No. 33-64561, No. 333-09765 and 333-17261) and in the related Prospectus of our
report dated March 27, 1997 with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc, included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                                               /s/ ERNST & YOUNG



Cincinnati, Ohio
March 28, 1997
Appeal Reinstated; Motion Denied and Order filed June 14, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00825-CV

____________

JAMES CHARLES SMITH, Appellant

V.

PIONEER HOMES BUILDERS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-57739

ORDER

This appeal is from a judgment signed August 28, 2012. Appellant filed a 

notice of appeal on August 31, 2012. Appellant filed a motion to proceed without 

payment of costs in this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(h). The district clerk filed 

a contest. We abated the appeal and referred the matter to the trial court. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 20.1(h)(4). On May 13, 2013, the trial court signed an order sustaining 

the contest to appellant’s claim of indigence.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1 governs the procedures to establish 

indigence on appeal. See Tex. R. App, P. 20.1 (West Supp. 2012). The rule 

requires a party claiming indigence who seeks review of the trial court’s order 

sustaining a contest to file her challenge “within 10 days after the order sustaining 

the contest is signed, or within 10 days after the notice of appeal is filed, 

whichever is later.” Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(j)(2). As of this date, appellant has not 

filed a motion challenging the trial court’s order.

Accordingly, appellant’s motion is denied and appellant is ordered to pay the 

filing fee in the amount of $175.00 to the Clerk of this court on or before July 1, 

2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in 

accordance with this order, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison and Busby.
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 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof, I, Gary C. Parks, Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
           15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
      2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
           of the Company.

                       /s/ Gary C. Parks
                       --------------------------------------------------------
                       Gary C. Parks
                       Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
                       (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
                       August 9, 2004
FRANK GREMAUX ALISSA DERRY Pirst Wnrd Commissioom 

# CITY OF LEWISTOWN

ELIZABETH PUTNAM GAYLE DONEY Third Ward Ccmmissiceers JIM DANIELS Park and Recreation Director PA1TfTURK DIANA HEWITT Second WiJ.Cd Commissioners MONTE aOEnGER CilyAl!omcy CORY BtRDWELL Poliee Chief

RJCKPOSS At-Large Ccmmissioner JASON MANLEY Fire Cltief ROGER KRUCKENBERG Director of Public Works
KEVIN MYHRE Ciry Manager 305 W. Watson, Lewistown, Montana 59457 (406) 535-1760 Fax (406) 535-3323 KELLYANNETERRY Librnry D~C<:(or DUANE FERDINAND Planning Director NlK.Kl DRUMMOND Finnnee Offi=fCily Clerk August 22,2013
Dennis DeVany Department of Transportation Office oftbe Secretary Washington, D.C.

Sent via email to: dennis.devany@dot:gov; eas@dot.gov; cc to: Mark Hybner@baucus.senate.!!:ov; dzrice@!!:maiLcom
Dear Mr
. DeVany, On July 2,2013, the City of Lewistown submitted a Petition for Reconsideration regarding Order 2013-6- 13. Since that submission, we have reviewed this matter further with the Department, Senator Baucus' office and other communities facing similar challenges. As a result, please consider this letter as the City of Lewistown's request to withdraw the Petition for Reconsideration previously submitted. The City of Lewistown is still very interested in preserving Essential Air Service for Central Montana. Accordingly, and after we have more fully researched the matter, we may pursue a request to the Department for reinstatement ofEAS. Thank you for your assistance and willingness 

### to work with the City of Lewistown on this important matter.

Kevin Myhre Lewistown City Manager cc, City Commission
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Certifications**
**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Ocular Sciences, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
     (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
Dated: November 9, 2004         /s/ Stephen J. Fanning   Stephen J. Fanning   Chief Executive Officer   
**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Ocular Sciences, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:
     (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
Dated: November 9, 2004         /s/ Steven M. Neil   Steven M. Neil    Chief Financial Officer
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50348

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HUMBERTO TORRES-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-02-CR-567-1-AML

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Humberto Torres-Rodriguez appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Torres contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction

that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a

separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been

alleged in his indictment. Torres maintains that he pleaded
No. 03-50348

-2-

guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under

8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the

two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for

that offense. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Torres acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,104
<SECURITIES>                                    22,979
<RECEIVABLES>                                      441
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,524
<PP&E>                                           1,586
<DEPRECIATION>                                     608
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,336
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,264
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,410
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,657
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,148
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 166
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,343
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,212
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,131
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,131
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51
        

</TABLE>
Jon HAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3405

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 29, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED**

**PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference (A) in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-43138, 33-61907, 33-10257, 333-44959, 333-61833, 333-69268, 333-90919 and 333-88250) pertaining to the 1981Employee Incentive Stock Option Plan, 1987 Stock Option Plan, 1995 Stock Option Plan, as amended, 1995 Non-Employee Directors’ Stock Option Plan, as amended, 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended, CEO Option Program, VP Sales OptionProgram and VP Finance & Administration and CFO Option Program of California Micro Devices Corporation and (B) in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-76206) of our report dated April 29, 2002, with respect to the financial statementsand schedule of California Micro Devices Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2002. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young, LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

September 1, 2004