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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE OCTOBER
3, 1999 FORM 10-Q 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>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1999
<CASH>                                           2,625
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      973
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,612
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,190
<PP&E>                                          66,445
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,265
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 102,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,643
<BONDS>                                         49,913
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   102,170
<SALES>                                        147,209
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               147,209
<CGS>                                           50,176
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,658
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,541
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,135
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,406
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        2,281
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,125
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66


</TABLE>
IN RE: Kevin M. DANTZLER

NO. 2018-B-0621

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 2018

ORDER

Considering the Petition for Interim Suspension for Threat of Harm filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Kevin M. Dantzler, Louisiana Bar Roll number 30237, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.2, pending further orders of this court. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order is effective immediately.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel may seek the appointment of a trustee(s) to protect the interests of respondent's clients pursuant to the provisions of Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 27, if appropriate.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Surface Transportation Board

          - [Docket No. EP 558 (Sub-No. 25)]

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Board is instituting a proceeding to determine the railroad industry's cost of capital for 2021. The decision solicits comments on the following issues: The railroads' 2021 current cost of debt capital; the railroads' 2021 current cost of preferred equity capital (if any); the railroads' 2021 cost of common equity capital; the 2021 capital structure mix of the railroad industry on a market value basis; and the appropriate treatment of Kansas City Southern (KCS) in light of the merger transaction currently under consideration in                         *Canadian Pacific Railway—Control—Kansas City Southern,*                         Docket No. FD 36500. For example, there is not a full year of KCS stock price data available for 2021.                    

# DATES:

Notices of intent to participate are due by March 28, 2022. Statements of the railroads are due by April 18, 2022. Statements of other interested persons are due by May 9, 2022. Rebuttal statements by the railroads are due by May 31, 2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Comments may be filed with the Board via e-filing on the Board's website.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The decision in this proceeding is posted at                     *www.stb.gov.*

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10704(a))

Decided: February 10, 2022.

By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.

Raina White,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. 2022-03340 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial information extracted from SEC
     Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
     statements as of and for the three months ended March 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000883946           
<NAME>                        TREEV INC
<MULTIPLIER>                               1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,642
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,375
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,204)
<INVENTORY>                                        859
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,355
<PP&E>                                           7,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (6,092)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,361
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,174
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,569
<SALES>                                          5,920
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,920
<CGS>                                            3,442
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,272
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,795)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,795)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,795)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)
        


</TABLE>
Leon J. NICELY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4044

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 2, 2018

Leon J. Nicely, Jr., pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Osterhaus, Winokur, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
Ranzino Ahmad HARRIS v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-00347-COA

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: March 27, 2018 Closed: May 10, 2018

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Denied.
S.B., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-482

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 19, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
AMERISTAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. M 1 FLORIDA DEVELOPMENTS, INC., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3864

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ted Evan DOUGHTY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-6380

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 28, 2017

Decided: May 11, 2017

*188Ted Evan Doughty, Appellant Pro Se.

Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior District Judge,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ted Evan Doughty seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Doughty has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Doughty’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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*
John W. COST v. Mahlon FELKINS, Brenda Leigh Felkins, and Alabama Power Co.

2160394

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
James E. WILSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4093

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lawrence M. TUITELE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10222

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 27, 2017

Thomas J. Brady, Assistant.U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lawrence M. Tuitele, Pro Se

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 **

Lawrence M. Tuitele appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 *600U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Tuitele contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). *See United States v. Leniear,*574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded that Tui-tele is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); *Leniear,*574 F.3d at 673. Contrary to Tuitele’s argument, the district court properly determined his applicable guidelines range without regard to the downward departure that the court granted at his original sentencing. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cnit. n.1(A); *United States v. Ornelas,*825 F.3d 548, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2016).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADDED BY**

**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;                and |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | To                my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,                in                all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                April 15, 2008 | By:    | /s/                Steven van der Velden |
|-------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|
|                                |   | Steven                van der Velden     |
|                                |   | Chief                Executive Officer   |

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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 of Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc. (“Morton’s”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 3, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Allen J. Bernstein, the Chief Executive Officer of Morton’s, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Morton’s.

 

Date: August 15, 2005

 
|   | /s/ ALLEN J. BERNSTEIN  |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Allen J. Bernstein      |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
#### Swaran KAUR; Balbir Singh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMPTROLLER OF the CURRENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15569

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 17, 2017

Swaran Kaur, Pro Se

Balbir Singh, Pro Se

Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esquire, Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, Severson *&*Werson APC, One Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Swaran Kaur and Balbir Singh appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from the foreclosure of their property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Barren v. Harrington,*152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); *Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez),*51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed appellants’ deprivation of rights and discrimination claims for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) because the allegations in the second amended complaint were vague, confusing, and failed to connect their claims to defendants’ conduct. *See*Fed. R. Civ. P, 8(a)(2) (pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’); *McHenry v. Renne,*84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that failed to set forth simple, concise and direct averments).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellants’ second amended complaint without further leave to amend because the district court provid*237ed appellants with two opportunities to amend and further amendment would be futile. *See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,*656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); *Chodos v. West Publ’g Co.,*292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a district court has already granted a plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is particularly broad.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication. and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
### PD-0144-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 3/11/2015 3:07:58 PM Accepted 3/12/2015 9:48:10 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
     1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Excalibur Industries, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10KQSB for the year ending December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, William S.H. Stuart, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 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; 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/ William S.H. Stuart
-----------------------
William S.H. Stuart, Chief Executive Officer
April 14, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03109]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FDA-2022-C-0098]


Motif FoodWorks, Inc.; Filing of Color Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing 
that we have filed a petition, submitted by Motif FoodWorks, Inc., 
proposing that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for 
the safe use of myoglobin as a color additive in meat and poultry 
analogue products.

DATES: The color additive petition was filed on December 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the 
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document into 
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Dockets 
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Anderson, Center for Food Safety 
and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., 
College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1309.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 721(d)(1) of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1)), we are giving notice 
that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 2C0322), submitted by 
Motif FoodWorks, Inc., 27 Drydock Ave., 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02210. 
The petition proposes to amend the color additive regulations in part 
73 (21 CFR part 73), ``Listing of Color Additives Exempt from 
Certification,'' to provide for the safe use of myoglobin as a color 
additive in meat and poultry analogue products.
    The petitioner has claimed that this action is categorically 
excluded under 21 CFR 25.32(r) because the substance occurs naturally 
in the environment, and the action does not alter significantly the 
concentration or distribution of the substance, its metabolites, or 
degradation products in the environment. In addition, the petitioner 
has stated that, to their knowledge, no extraordinary circumstances 
exist that would warrant at least an environmental assessment (see 21 
CFR 25.21). If FDA determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither 
an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required. If FDA determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we 
will request an environmental assessment and make it available for 
public inspection.

    Dated: February 7, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-03109 Filed 2-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. John ROBERTSON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10040 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Robertson, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent John Robertson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Robertson has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.