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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD
<CIK> 0001005177
<NAME> ML JWH STRATEGIC ALLOCATION FUND

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             323                 533,233
<RECEIVABLES>                               64,695,309              46,508,853
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                        275,306,752             288,513,454
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             340,002,384             335,555,540
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                  13,444,846               5,948,658
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 326,406,020             329,606,882
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               340,002,384             335,555,540
<TRADING-REVENUE>                          (3,898,527)             (2,059,050)
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         4,341,710               3,896,459
<COMMISSIONS>                                7,230,044               6,560,715
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,786,861)             (4,723,306)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 (6,786,861)             (4,723,306)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,786,801)             (4,723,306)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.81)                  (2.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.81)                  (2.21)


</TABLE>
BOEM Seeks Public Involvement in Preparing an Environmental Assessment for a 

2015 Geophysical 3D Ocean Bottom Seismic Survey in Cook Inlet 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is preparing an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) for a proposed seismic survey by SAExploration, Inc. (SAE). The proposed survey area 

covers approximately 698 square miles in lower Cook Inlet. The project is proposed to run from 

March 1, 2015 through December 15, 2015. Although the EA will include an analysis of 

proposed activities within the entire proposed project area, BOEM’s jurisdictional permit 

authority is limited to activities in the Outer Continental Shelf. BOEM is inviting the public to 

comment on issues that should be considered in preparing the EA. 

BOEM received SAE's 2015 Geological and Geophysical (G&G) Permit application on April 21, 

2014. The G&G Permit application was deemed complete with receipt of supplemental 

environmental information on October 29, 2014 and a final Plan of Operations was submitted on 

November 14, 2014. SAE's permit application 15-01 and an associated area coverage map are 

available for review at: http://www.boem.gov/G-G-Survey-15-01. 

BOEM is only accepting and considering public comments submitted through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. BOEM-2014-0099). The deadline 

to receive these comments is Dec. 12, 2014 (midnight, EST). BOEM cautions that before 

including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information 

in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal 

identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask BOEM 

(prominently at the beginning of your submission) to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public view, BOEM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so. BOEM will 

not consider anonymous comments.
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



The undersigned, Kenneth A. Shewer, Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Managing Owner, Preferred Investment Solutions Corp. (the Managing Owner), of Futures
Strategic Trust (the Trust), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Trusts Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    KENNETH A. SHEWER                                 
|Kenneth A. Shewer Co-Chief Executive Officer May 16, 2005
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. George Dana CRAMER, Appellant, v. A. C. CAVELL, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, at Rockview, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania.

No. 15718.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 17, 1966.

Decided Nov. 1, 1966.

Certiorari Denied Feb. 13, 1967.

See 87 S.Ct. 889.

George D. Cramer, pro se.

P. Hart Beaver, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Lebanon, Pa., for appellee.

Before MARIS, McLAUGHLIN and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this habeas corpus proceeding the relator argues that he was denied counsel at the time he pleaded guilty of the offense of rape in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. The district court has found that when the relator was arraigned, competent counsel was appointed to represent him and did so. The district court was in no doubt, nor are we, as to *323the fact that the relator voluntarily and intelligently pleaded guilty with the advice of competent counsel.

The order of the district court denying a writ of habeas corpus will be affirmed.
#### William H. Lockwood, App’lt, *v.*Benjamin F. Lockwood, Resp’t.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,*

*Filed June 2, 1891.)*

Justice’s coubt—Evidence.

Where there is evidence, other than that which is inadmissible, to fully sustain the judgment of a justice’s court, the county court should refuse to reverse on account of the admission of the improper evidence.

*601Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe county court, entered on the 31st day of December, 1890, affirming a judgment of a justice of the peace.

*C. A.*Shuart, for app’lt; *John E.*Robson, for resp’t.

Macomber, J.

The action was brought to recover the possession of a sorrel horse. The defense was, that four years prior to the beginning of the action the plaintiff gave this horse to the defendant, who took possession of it, and retained such possession with the exception of about three months, when he was loaned by the defendant to the plaintiff for a special purpose. The case presented to the justice of the peace was clearly one of fact. Evidence was adduced, consisting of the testimony of the defendant, directly to the act of the gift, the taking of the gift and the retention thereunder, and the testimony of others, including the plaintiff’s wife, as to the declarations of the plaintiff that he had given the defendant, who is his son, not only an education but a horse in addition thereto. This evidence, including the admissions sworn to by the plaintiff’s wife, is denied by the plaintiff. But the justice of the peace, yielding to a preponderance of the evidence, held, as a matter of fact, with the defendant, and the county court concurs with him.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment should be affirmed in this court, unless.some error prejudicial to the plaintiff took place upon the trial.

The defendant was asked the question: “ Is the sorrel horse, referred to in this case, your property ?”

This was objected to, and the objection overruled, and the answer was “ yes.”

It is argued that within the authority of *Nicolay*v. Unger, 80 H. Y., 54, this evidence was incompetent. But where there is evidence, other than that which is inadmissible, fully to support the claim made by the defendant, as in this case, the county court should, as it in fact did, properly refuse to reverse the judgment on account of the improper evidence under § 3063 of the Code of Civ. Pro., relating to appeals from justice’s courts, where the appellate court is required to render judgment according to the justice of the case without regard to technical errors or defects which do not affect the merits. *Earl*v. *Lefler,*10 RT. Y. State Rep., 807. The evidence objected to may be eliminated from the case, and still there would be left sufficient to support the judgment appealed from.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment of the county court should be affirmed, with costs.

Dwight, P. J., concurs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Rafael HERNANDEZ-SORIANO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40905 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 18, 2017

Andrew R. Gould, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Rafael Hernandez-Soriano, Pro Se

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Rafael Hernandez-Soriano appeals his 50-month within-guidelines sentence for illegally reentering the United States after deportation. He contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to recognize that it had the authority to grant his motion for a downward variance based on a then-pending amendment to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. *See United States v. Clay,*787 F.3d 328, 332 (5th Cir. 2015).

Hernandez-Sorian'o’s argument is predicated on the district court’s statement at sentencing that it was bound to apply the version of the Guidelines then in effect, which predated the effective date of the amendment in question. However, the court made that statement, which is a correct statement of law, *United States v. Rodarte-Vasquez,*488 F.3d 316, 322 (5th Cir. 2007), in response to Hernandez-Sori-ano’s request for a continuance until after the effective date of the amendment. While the statement is not truly responsive to the continuance request, it does not suggest a belief by the district court that it had no discretion to grant a downward variance in light of the pending amendment. Rather,' the district court made an individualized assessment, taking into account Hernandez-Soriano’s mitigation arguments, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, *355the Sentencing Guidelines, and Hernandez-Soriano’s criminal history, which, the court noted, includes a very serious federal drug distribution conviction. Considering all of the relevant information, the court determined that 50 months was an appropriate sentence and thus denied the requested variance. Accordingly, Hernandez-Soriano has shown no error, plain or otherwise.

Because there is no support for Hernandez-Soriano’s contention that the district court actually made the error he complains of, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

**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.
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

**SECTION1350 CERTIFICATION**

In connection with this quarterly report of ML JWH Strategic AllocationFund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”),I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer, of Merrill Lynch AlternativeInvestments LLC, the general partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 15, 2007
| By                                           | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
| Barbra E. Kocsis                             |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6295 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6295

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the 50 
percent limitation on the deduction for meal expenses does not apply to 
 meals provided on certain fishing boats or at certain fish processing 
                              facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 8, 2023

 Ms. DelBene (for herself, Mr. Newhouse, Mrs. Peltola, Mr. Kilmer, Mr. 
  Larsen of Washington, Ms. Strickland, and Ms. Perez) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the 50 
percent limitation on the deduction for meal expenses does not apply to 
 meals provided on certain fishing boats or at certain fish processing 
                              facilities.

    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 ``Remote Seafood Employee Meals Tax 
Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. MEALS PROVIDED ON CERTAIN FISHING BOATS AND AT CERTAIN FISH 
              PROCESSING FACILITIES NOT SUBJECT TO 50 PERCENT 
              LIMITATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 274(n)(2)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iv) and by 
adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(v) provided--
                                    ``(I) on a fishing vessel, fish 
                                processing vessel, or fish tender 
                                vessel (as such terms are defined in 
                                section 2101 of title 46, United States 
                                Code), or
                                    ``(II) at a fish processing 
                                facility which is located in the United 
                                States north of 50 degrees north 
                                latitude and which is not located in a 
                                metropolitan statistical area (within 
                                the meaning of section 143(k)(2)(B)), 
                                or''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2019.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Melvin WARD, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50970 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 26, 2017

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

Melvin Ward, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Melvin Ward 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). Ward has filed a response. He requests substitution of new counsel for his appointed attorney, an extension of time for a new attorney to file a responsive brief, and a stay of the proceedings. The motion is DENIED as untimely as to the appointment of counsel. *See United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). Because the decision in *Bedeles v. United States,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017), has issued, the motion for a stay of the proceedings is DENIED as well.

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ward’s response. 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.
## Slo-loMios-no d

PLEAS E RESPON D TO ; r- f7i3«IUvMMNlinuM(k»c»iMov i

iw\n!-tt t r= 1 4C4t«hitiHAurwc,mi M ^ lt«rw.OII»H0 t

tui|4fvcn ) l-M0-»U4t U r i inctMi»M.Aii«M*.'3 U

- ^ CouBAy.miM H

tS4i|MS-M U f- l ltl7S i iKIiatttlMkt.t * ' - ' ltMIBi>«a.0<l9T47 0

»4I>4W->U ] 

## v'EMTO r



# Congres(£ (o f

tfj e^ittte b S>tate£ ( i!i)otmeo f JKeprcsfentatibef

f PETERA-DcFAZl O 4T MDiSTM^ct . Owcot . TftANSraRIATlO N AN D INFRASTTIUCTUn E lUICtMMiirUK tflOhWAY B AM D TDANSt T DMTM M AMATIO N •AILNOA M Auyiis i 24 , 201 0 HOUElANOSECURrTY iwMCiuimu * TRKKSPMfATlO NSECUMn r AM O Mrn*$TriucTu M NOIECTIC W MANAOmiNT . nVftTIOATtON . ANDOVERSIOH I

NA1URA LRESOURCE S su•eo^MlTff [ NA1I0N M PAflKS.FOMIStS.ANOrU«LCIAKO S

WATmANOKHftl

R Secretar y Kay LaHoo d U S Depariineni : o f

Transportaciu n Washingto nD

C :;eE : Secretar y LaHood : Pleas enot em

y suppor t

fo r th e applicatio nsubmitte db y th e Eugen e Airpor t fo r aSmal l Communit y Ai r Servic eDevelopmen t Progra mgran t

t o improv eai r

service . Th eEugen eAirpor t serve s nearl y 700,00 0 are aresidents , bu t curien t ai r servic ei s insufficient . Federa l fund s wiX l allo w th e airpor t t o establis halin k betwee nEugen ean dSa nJose , California . Increasin g fligh t

availabilit y wil l enhanc eus e o f th e airpor t

an d provid evaluabl ebenefit s t o thi s economicall y vibran t region . Pleas e giv ethi s reques t ful l an dfai r

consideration . Sincerely ,

PETE RDeFAZI O Membe c o f

Congres s PADiPJl V

THt S STATIONER VPRMTE O O N PAPE R MAD E WIT H RECVCtE D nOER S
#### Mark Komlosi, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[769 NYS2d 890]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered February 26, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the cross motion of the municipal defendants to amend their answer to assert as a defense that the action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and to dismiss the complaint on that ground, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The claims plaintiff seeks to pursue in this state court action were, or could have been, raised and decided in the now concluded federal court action premised on the same underlying transactions. Accordingly, since plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his state claims in the federal action and the claims asserted in the federal action, including those dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, were adjudicated on the merits, defendants’ motion to dismiss this action on res judicata grounds was properly granted *(see Smith v Russell Sage Coll.,*54 NY2d 185, 194 [1981]; *Marinelli Assoc. v Helmsley-Noyes Co.,*265 AD2d 1 [2000]; *Giacomazzo v Moreno,*94 AD2d 369 [1983], *lv denied*60 NY2d 558 [1983]; *cf., Browning Ave. Realty Corp. v Rubin,*207 AD2d 263 [1994], *lv denied*85 NY2d 804 [1995]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0001004991
<NAME>  Redwood Broadcasting, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  201,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,800
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,128,878
<PP&E>                                         279,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,460
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,508,391
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          585,076
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,800
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,260,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,508,391
<SALES>                                        741,314
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               741,314
<CGS>                                           68,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  749,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8,645)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8,645)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,645)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)
        



</TABLE>