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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1998
<CASH>                                          35,148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,464
<INVENTORY>                                    229,353
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               273,318
<PP&E>                                         459,823
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,726
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 693,518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,547
<BONDS>                                        178,329
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       265,854
<OTHER-SE>                                     103,854
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   693,518
<SALES>                                        832,501
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               832,501
<CGS>                                          597,913
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  597,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               178,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,887
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,899
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,578
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,321
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars            
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997         
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                                 160
<SECURITIES>                                          2449
<RECEIVABLES>                                          240
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     46747
<PP&E>                                                 983
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       50579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                11882
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                54
<OTHER-SE>                                           38643 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         50579 
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      5070     
<CGS>                                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      3519 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     129 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       1422 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (6589)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   8011 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0 
<CHANGES>                                                0 
<NET-INCOME>                                          8011 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         1.97 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0 
                                                    


</TABLE>
Omar A. CUMMINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5532

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Financial Statements of The BISYS Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries for
the nine months ended March 31, 1998 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>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         116,168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,498
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,875
<PP&E>                                          71,186
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,286
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 324,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,345
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           529
<OTHER-SE>                                     222,523
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   324,972
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               281,844
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  164,140
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,329
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,082
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,660
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,691
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,969
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,969
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.95
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.92
        

</TABLE>
From: Tracy, Brent [Brent.Tracy@jm.com]

Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 10:01 AM

To: Fairchild.Susan@epamail.epa.gov

Cc: Hancy, Cindy Wang

Subject: JM Defiance Test Report

In response to Ms. Hancy’s February 4, 2011, e

- mail, JM has obtained an updated public version of the test report for the Defiance facility from the testing company. Since the document is both public and electronic, I will be e

- mailing it to Ms. Fairchi ld later this morning. The file is rather large, so if for some reason it gets blocked, and you don’t receive it, please let me know and I
will burn it to a CD and mail it.

Brent Tracy
Associate General Counsel Environmental, Health & Safety
Johns Manv ille
717 17th Street Denver, CO 80202 Direct: (303) 978

- 3268 Fax: (303) 978

- 2832

E

- mail: brent.tracy@jm.com

The information contained in this e

- mail transmission is confidential and may be protected by the
attorney

- client and/or the attorney work product privileges. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of th is

c ommunication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return email or by telephone, collect, and delete the original transmission and any attachments without saving in any manner. Tha nk you.
#### Rapheal G. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA; Service Link, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35076

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed March 2, 2017

Rapheal G. Russell, Pro Se

Kasey Curtis, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Steven J. Dixson, Attorney, Christopher George Varallo, Attorney, Witherspoon Kelley, Spokane, WA, Elena 0, Gekker, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Bank of America

Matthew Cleverley, Trial Attorney, Fidelity National Law Group, Columbia Center, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Service Link

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Russell’s action because Russell failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for relief and failed to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss. *See id.*at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); *see also*W.D. Wash. R. 7(b)(2) (the court may deem ,a failure to oppose a motion as an admission that the motion has merit).

*579We do not consider arguments not raised in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 988, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as without merit Russell’s argument related to the district court’s failure to change the trial date.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Torrey Dewayne WALKER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0231

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0422 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JACK ELDON JARVEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 27 , 2020 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 19 2020

06/19/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0422
##### 



Exhibit 31(b) CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, W. Douglas Benn, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of RARE Hospitality
International, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and we have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this Quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered by this Quarterly report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,
or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. May 5, 2004
    /s/ W. Douglas BennW. Douglas BennExecutive Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
#### Michael Ray WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carlton JOYNER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6536

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

*120Michael Ray Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Ray Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive and unauthorized. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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*
EXHIBIT 24
                        POWERS OF ATTORNEY        


          KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned
directors of Premark International, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
(the "Corporation"), hereby constitute and appoint John M.
Costigan, L. John Fletcher and Gregory J. Mancuso, and each of
them, true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents of the
undersigned, with full power of substitution and resubstitution,
for and in the name, place and stead of the undersigned, in any
and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the
Corporation for its fiscal year ended December 27, 1997, and any
and all amendments thereto, and to file or cause to be filed the
same, together with any and all exhibits thereto and other
documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and
agents and substitutes, and each of them, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite or necessary to be done in and about the premises as
fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or
could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents and substitutes, and each of them,
may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set
his or her hand and seal this 4th day of March, 1998.




                                    James M. Ringler




                                    Harry W. Bowman



                                    Ruth M. Davis           



                                    Lloyd C. Elam          



                                    W. James Farrell      



                                    Richard S. Friedland



                                    John B. McKinnon     



                                    David R. Parker      



                                    Janice D. Stoney
#### In the Matter of Susan A. Sales, Respondent, v Randy J. Brozzo, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 901]

Rose, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of St. Lawrence County (Fotter, J.), entered October 10, 2002, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4, revoked respondent’s suspended sentence of incarceration.

When respondent failed to make ordered child support payments, petitioner commenced a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4 seeking to find respondent in willful violation of the order of the court and to incarcerate him for his contempt. A Support Magistrate found, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that respondent had willfully failed to obey the support order. Thereafter, Family Court confirmed those findings and issued a July 2002 order sentencing respondent to a 90-day term of incarceration suspended for one year on condition that he pay the support arrears within a specified period of time. Respondent did not appeal.

Later, when respondent failed to comply with the July 2002 order, the St. Lawrence County Support Collection Unit applied to Family Court for revocation of respondent’s suspended sentence of incarceration. Following a hearing in October 2002, at which respondent was represented by counsel, Family Court found good cause to revoke the suspension and committed respondent to a term of incarceration of 90 days pursuant to the July 2002 order *(see*Family Ct Act § 455 [1]). Although respondent completed the sentence of incarceration in January 2003, he now appeals from the October 2002 order revoking the suspension.

We have held that a commitment of imprisonment pursuant to Family Ct Act article 4 is “in the nature of punishment for civil contempt and completion of the jail term for a civil contempt renders the matter moot” *(Matter of Madison County Support Collection Unit v Drennan,*156 AD2d 883, 883 [1989] [citation omitted]; *see Matter of Sabrina*O., 309 AD2d 984, 984 [2003]; *Matter of Lane v Lane,*216 AD2d 641, 642 [1995]). In any event, inasmuch as respondent failed to appeal from the July 2002 order, his “contentions concerning the propriety of Family Court’s [July 2002] order finding a willful violation of the support order and imposing a suspended sentence of *808incarceration are not properly before this Court” *(Matter of Dauria v Dauria,*286 AD2d 879, 880 [2001]).

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
N.T.C., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Grady C. JUDD, Sheriff, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1523

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1465 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1465

 To require a local government to waive sovereign immunity to receive 
any grant funds from the Department of Justice if such local government 
  has defunded a municipal police department, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2021

Ms. Malliotakis (for herself, Mr. Gimenez, and Ms. Salazar) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require a local government to waive sovereign immunity to receive 
any grant funds from the Department of Justice if such local government 
  has defunded a municipal police department, 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 ``Right to Remain Safe Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GRANTS WITH RESPECT TO 
              DEFUNDING A MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to be 
eligible for any grant funding from the Department of Justice, a local 
government applying for such a grant shall certify to the Attorney 
General that the municipal police department of such local government 
has not been defunded in either the current or prior fiscal year in 
which the local government is applying for such grant.
    (b) Exceptions.--
            (1) Inability to pay.--A local government that demonstrates 
        that the municipal police department was defunded because of an 
        inability to pay, including demonstrating decreases throughout 
        the budget of the local government, shall be eligible for grant 
        funding from the Department of Justice.
            (2) Waiver of sovereign immunity.--A local government that 
        has defunded the municipal police department shall be eligible 
        for grant funding from the Department of Justice if such local 
        government waives sovereign immunity with respect to a cause of 
        action against the local government by an individual for 
        property damages or damages for personal injuries as a result 
        of the municipal police department being defunded.
    (c) Local Government Defined.--In this section, the term ``local 
government'' means a municipality, city, town, township, a rural 
community, or unincorporated town or village.
                                 <all>
```