alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY RERERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>      1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          16,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,375
<INVENTORY>                                     32,159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               116,207
<PP&E>                                          98,017
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 210,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,099
<BONDS>                                         71,407
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            63
[OTHER]                                         55,733
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   210,051
<SALES>                                        323,387
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               323,387
<CGS>                                          268,023
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  296,551
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (183)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 25,775
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,924
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,851
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,851
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.81
        


</TABLE>
Anthony TYSON v. STATE

CR-14-0945

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
KPMG (LOGO)

Suite 2700, Independent Square
One Independent Drive
P.O. Box 190
Jacksonville, FL 32201-0190


                          Independent Auditors' Report


The Board of Directors
HomeSide Lending, Inc.:

We have  examined  management's  assertion  about  HomeSide  Lending,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries'  (the Company's)  compliance with the minimum servicing  standards
set forth in the  Mortgage  Bankers  Association  of  America's  Uniform  Single
Attestation  Program for  Mortgage  Bankers and that the Company had in effect a
fidelity bond and errors and  omissions  policy in the amount of $76 million and
$20  million,  respectively,  as of and for the year ended  September  30, 1999,
included in the  accompanying  management  assertion  letter dated  December 17,
1999.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum
servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In  our  opinion,   management's  assertion  that  HomeSide  Lending,  Inc.  and
subsidiaries  has  complied in all  material  respects  with the  aforementioned
minimum  servicing  standards and that the Company had in effect a fidelity bond
and errors and  omissions  policy in the amount of $76 million and $20  million,
respectively,  as of and for the year ended September 30, 1999 is fairly stated,
in all material respects.

December 17, 1999

KPMG LLP
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hugo AMBRIZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51211 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Hugo Ambriz, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hugo Ambriz 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). Ambriz 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
Peter Kevin FISCHER & Thomas Maresca, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0588

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Dale PRESSNALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30242

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 16, 2017 *

Filed August 18, 2017

Michael Wayne Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, U.S. Courthouse, Coeur d’Alene, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee

James Dale Pressnall, Pro Se

Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

James Dale Presnall appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 63-month sentence for possession of sexually explicit images of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B). Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Pressnall’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Pressnall the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Pressnall has waived the right to appeal his sentence. Because the record discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the appeal waiver, we dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Siobhan RYMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-104

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 8, 2017

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Julius J. Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
Virginia T. SCOTT, Appellant, v. MANOR CARE OF WEST PALM BEACH FL, LLC d/b/a Manor Care Health Services-West Palm Beach and HCR III HealthCare, LLC, Appellees.

No. 4D17-2540

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 7, 2018]

Virginia T. Scott, Jupiter, pro se.

Scott A Cole and Daniel M. Schwarz of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A. Plantation, for appellees.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Taylor and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Saul LOPEZ-TAPIA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40429 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Saul Lopez-Tapia, Pro Se

*922Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Saul Lopez-Tapia 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). Lopez-Tapia 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 Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the co.urt 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.
Steven T. HUMPHREY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0785

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 27, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed on account of appellant's failure to comply with this court's order dated March 6, 2018, requiring appellant to identify the circuit court order or orders being appealed.

NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leandro Perfecto CORTES-MELENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50143 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 1, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio,- TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Leandro Perfecto Cortes-Melendez, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Leandro Perfecto Cortes-Melendez 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). Cortes-Melendez has filed a response, but does not assert any grounds for appeal other than possible ineffective assistance of counsel. Because the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of this claim, we therefore decline to consider it on direct review. Our decision not to reach this issue is without prejudice to collateral review and does not prevent Cortes-Melendez from raising his ineffective assistance of counsel claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

“If counsel finds [a] case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it,” she may request permission to withdraw after filling “a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.” *Anders,*386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396. This court “then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is *317wholly frivolous.” *Id.*We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Cortes-Melendez’s response, and hold that the appeal presents no non-frivolous issue for our review.

Because Cortes-Melendez declared in writing his decision not to appeal his conviction, we consider potential challenges to his sentencing only. *See United States v. Garcia,*483 F.3d 289, 291 (5th Cir. 2007). The record presents no non-frivolous argument that the district court erred in calculating his Guidelines range, or that the sentence imposed was procedurally or substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the 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. Cortes-Melendez’s motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED.

*

 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 of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry L. LANGFORD, a/k/a Larry Lamont Bush, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4849

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 28, 2017

Julie Marie Reamy, JULIE M. REAMY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant,

Joyce Kallam McDonald, Assistant United States Attorney, Zachary Augustus Myers, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Terry L. Langford appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for release pending sentencing. We review a district court’s order denying bail for clear error. *See United States v. Williams,*753 F.2d 329 (4th Cir. 1985). The law has established a presumption in favor of detaining convicted defendants, which can be rebutted “by clear and convincing evidence that the [defendant] is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released.” 18 U.S.C. § 3143 (2012). Applying that standard, we conclude that the evidence supports the district court’s conclusion that Langford was a flight risk. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Evagelina Esparza Barrza, CEO and CFO, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of eClic, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this amended annual 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 amended annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. I am 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 is made known to
us by others within the Corporation, particularly during the period in which
this annual report is being prepared;

  b) evaluated the effectiveness of  the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in  the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during  the registrant's most
recent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect,  the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. I have disclosed, based on my 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
function):

    a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect  the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

    b) 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.


Date:  May 19, 2005                     /s/ Evagelina Esparza Barrza
       ------------                     ----------------------------
                                            Evagelina Esparza Barrza
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6011 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture 

to notify applicants of the completion status of right-of-way applications 

under section 501 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976 and section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 20, 2023 

Mr. VALADAO (for himself and Mr. NEWHOUSE) introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary 

of Agriculture to notify applicants of the completion status of right-of-way applications under section 501 of 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

and section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act. 

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


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6011 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Right-Of-Way Applica3 tion Transparency and Accountability Act’’ or the 

4 ‘‘ROWATA Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. DETERMINATION REGARDING RIGHTS-OF-WAY. 

6 (a) NOTICE.—Not later than 60 days after the Sec7 retary concerned receives an application to grant a right8 of-way, the Secretary concerned shall notify the applicant 

9 as to whether the application is complete or deficient. 

10 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

11 (1) RIGHT-OF-WAY.—The term ‘‘right-of-way’’ 

12 means— 

13 (A) a right-of-way issued, granted, or re14 newed under section 501 of the Federal Land 

15 Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

16 1761); or 

17 (B) a right-of-way granted under section 

18 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185). 

19 (2) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—The term ‘‘Sec20 retary concerned’’ means— 

21 (A) with respect to public lands, the Sec22 retary of the Interior; and 

23 (B) with respect to National Forest Sys24 tem lands, the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Æ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with BILLS
August 6, 2015

Mr. Noel Johnson

Broker/Owner

Premier Real Estate Services

550 25th Ave. N

St. Cloud, MN 56303

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§ xx.xx of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your April 15, exemption request on behalf of Premier Real Estate Services filed 

in Docket No. FAA-2015-1154, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.
2

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If

you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
The Honorable John Kerry Secretary United States Department ofState 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520 The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary May 15.2015

United States Department ofTranspprtation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 

# I The Honorable Penny Pritzker Secretary United States Department ofCommerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 

# ~wvr

**CTII-'/~D** AIRWAYS ABU DHABI

RE: Financial and Other Goyemmental Benefits Provided to American Airlines, Delta Air Lines and United Airlines Dear Secretaries Kerry, Foxx, and Pritzker, As noted during our meetings in March with your staff at the Departments of State. Commerce and Transportation, Etihad is preparing a comprehensive response to the allegations made by American, Delta, and United. However. as promised during those meetings, we are releasing certain parts of our response as they are available. The first of these is a report from The Risk Advisory Group entitled "Financial & Other Governmental Benefits Provided to American Airlines, Delta Air Lines & United," which was commissioned by Etihad Airways. The intention ofthis report is not to challenge the legality or availability ofthese benefits to US carriers, but simply to highlight the

**~act** that US carriers have been and continue to benefit from highly a favorable legal regime, such as bankruptcy protection and pension guarantees, exemptions from certain taxes, and various other forms ofsubsidies and benefits
. These benefits, which are generally only available to US carriers, have created a highly distorted market in which carriers such as Etihad have to compete.

901 15th S treet N.W., Suite 610, Washington, DC 20005 Tel:+1 202 735 26121 Fax:+1 202 735 2620IT oll Free:+1888 8 ETIHAD The National Airlineofthe Umted Arab Emirates ET"IHA.D AIRWAYS PARTNER etihad.co'Tl

# ~~vr**~TIJ-J/~D** AIRWAYS ABU DHABI

Etihad will release further reports in the coming weeks, which will also form part ofour overall response. Yours sincerely,

Encl.

EriHA..D AIRWAYS PARTNER etihad.com