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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> BD

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             123                      86
<RECEIVABLES>                               51,484,495              48,239,513
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                        187,633,858             343,267,792
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             239,118,476             391,507,391
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                   8,312,860              12,199,114
<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>                                 230,805,616             379,308,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               239,118,476             391,507,391
<TRADING-REVENUE>                         (40,830,328)              16,306,362
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                        13,390,817              13,007,356
<COMMISSIONS>                               18,787,371              25,801,452
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (46,226,882)               3,512,266
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                (46,226,882)               3,512,266
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              (46,226,882)               3,512,266
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (20.81)                    1.55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (20.81)                    1.55


</TABLE>
#### Nathaniel Robinson, Respondent, *v.*The Long Island Railroad Company, Appellant.

(Argued May 2, 1872;

decided May 21, 1872.)

*A. J. Vanderjgoel*for the appellant.

*George Miller*for the respondent.

For affirmance,

Church, Ch.'J., Grover, Peckham and Rapallo, JJ.; Folger and Allen, JJ., dissent. No opinion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 662 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 662

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 to 
  improve disaster relief funding for agricultural producers, 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 ``Block Grant Assistance Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. DISASTER RELIEF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2023 
              AMENDMENT.

    Title I of the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
2023 (division N of Public Law 117-328), is amended, in the matter 
under the heading ``Office of the Secretary'' under the heading 
``Processing, Research and Marketing'' under the heading ``AGRICULTURAL 
PROGRAMS'' under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'', by 
inserting ``: Provided further, That the Secretary of Agriculture may 
provide assistance for losses described under this heading in this Act 
in the form of block grants to eligible States and territories'' before 
the period at the end.

SEC. 3. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION.

    (a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this Act are 
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the 
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(g)).
    (b) Designation in Senate.--In the Senate, this Act and the 
amendment made by this section are designated as an emergency 
requirement pursuant to section 4001(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 14 (117th 
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
2022.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 12, 2023.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 662

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2023 to 
  improve disaster relief funding for agricultural producers, and for 
                            other purposes.
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6657 

To amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, to limit the conditions 

applicable to the use of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards to purchase food, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2023 

Mr. ROUZER (for himself and Mr. BACON) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, to 

limit the conditions applicable to the use of electronic 

benefit transfer (EBT) cards to purchase food, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securing Strictly 

5 Needy Americans’ Pivotal (SNAP) Benefits Act of 2023’’. 

2 

•HR 6657 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS 

2 ACT, 2023. 

3 Section 501 of title IV of division HH of the Consoli4 dated Appropriations Act, 2023, is amended by adding at 

5 the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(e) EXCLUSIVELY OUT-OF-STATE PURCHASES.— 

7 The State agency shall suspend the accounts of households 

8 for which EBT card transactions are made exclusively out9 of-State for a period longer than 60 days, until— 

10 ‘‘(1) the household affirmatively provides sub11 stantiating evidence that the members of the house12 hold who are program participants still reside in the 

13 state from which they receive benefits; or 

14 ‘‘(2) an investigation is conducted and conclu15 sively determines that the members of the household 

16 who are program participants still reside in the state 

17 from which they receive benefits.’’. 

18 SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON REDEMPTION OF SUPPLEMENTAL 

19 NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BENEFITS 

20 BY OWNERS OF APPROVED RETAIL FOOD 

21 STORES AND WHOLESALE FOOD CONCERNS. 

22 Section 9 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 

23 U.S.C. 2020) is amended by adding at the end the fol24 lowing: 

25 ‘‘(k) LIMITATION ON REDEMPTION OF SUPPLE26 MENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM BENEFITS BY

3 

•HR 6657 IH

1 HOUSEHOLDS THAT INCLUDE MEMBERS WHO ARE OWN2 ERS OF APPROVED RETAIL FOOD STORES OR WHOLE3 SALE FOOD CONCERNS.— 

4 ‘‘(1) A household that includes a member who 

5 is an owner of an approved retail food store or 

6 wholesale food concern may not redeem supple7 mental nutrition assistance program benefits at such 

8 store or such concern. 

9 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect 

10 to a retail food store, or a wholesale food concert, 

11 that is owned by a publicly owned corporation or by 

12 a government.’’. 

13 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

14 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

15 take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

16 Act. 

Æ
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of drugstore.com, inc. (the Company) for the period ending December 28, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kal Raman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/    KAL
RAMANKal RamanChief Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to drugstore.com, inc. and will be retained by drugstore.com, inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|March | 12, 2004
|----- | --------
#### Erastus Higbee *et al.*Appellants, &c. *versus*Enoch Bacon, Administrator of Ephraim Bacon.

*Oct. 5th*1827.

A judge of probate has authority to examine an administrator upon oath, touching any obligation due from the administrator himself to the intestate’s estate.

The appellants represented to the judge of probate, that they were interested in the estate of Ephraim Bacon ; and that they had reason to suspect that the administrator withheld and refused to account for a certain obligation whereby he was bound to pay to the intestate certain large sums of money, and upon which large arrearages were due and unpaid at the time of the intestate’s decease ; and they prayed that he might be required to produce the instrument and submit himself to examination under oath touching the matters contained in their complaint.

After the administrator had answered that the intestate, during his life, held obligations against him for the payment of money, the following interrogatory was put:—“ Were any of said instruments under seal; if so, how many and what were they ; and if any such sealed instruments were held by the intestate during his life, did you take them into your possession after his decease ? ”

The administrator refused to answer this question ; and the judge of probate decreed that he be no further held to answer respecting a certain obligation &c., as set forth in the complaint.

*J. Davis*and *Tufts,*for the appellants,

remarked that the settlement of the administrator’s second account was pending, and that this complaint was filed in order that the account might *16be settled truly. They cited *St.*1783, c. 32, § 11, 12 ; *St*1817, c. 190, § 14 ; *Stearns*v. Brown, 1 Pick. 535 ; Toller 489, 495.

*April term*1888.

Newton, contra,

cited *Selectmen of*Boston, v. Boylston, 4 Mass. R. 322. The appellee’s objection to answering interrogatories was, that he would thereby lose the common law right of a trial by jury. In the case just referred to, the Court say that the authority of the judge of probate under *St.*1783, c 32, § 11, extends, at most, only to an examination of an administrator for the purpose of discovery. But there is no good reason for permitting an examination even for that purpose, as a discovery before the judge of probate could avail the appellants only as subsidiary to some other process before a different tribunal. He could pass no decree grounded on the discovery. The proper course for them would seem to be, to file a bill of discovery in this Court as a court of equity.

At the following term in April, the decree of the judge of probate was reversed, and he was commanded to proceed upon the complaint and in the examination of the administrator touching the estate of the deceased, according to law. 1

1

 See *Higbee*v. *Bacon,*8 Pick. 484 ; *O‘Dee*v. *M‘Crate,*7 Greenl. 467 *Saxton*v. *Chamberlain*6 Pick. 422; *Pope*v. *Jackson,*11 Pick. 113.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00275

- CV

I N RE : T HE C OMMITMENT OF J EFFREY

P ARKINSON §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 158th District

Court

of Denton County ( 21

- 6836

- 158 )

April 6, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s civil commitment order . It is ordered that the order

of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

Justice Dabney Bassel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Company's
consolidated financial statements for the twelve weeks ended June 22, 1999
included in this report on Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000  <F1>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-22-1999
<CASH>                                          56,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  204,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,600
<INVENTORY>                                     76,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               399,000
<PP&E>                                       1,420,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                 671,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,592,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          274,300
<BONDS>                                        151,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           400
<OTHER-SE>                                     641,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,592,300
<SALES>                                        449,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               449,600
<CGS>                                          247,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  247,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,500
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,500
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
<FN>
<F1>Footnote to electronic filing only:  as presented,
data is rounded to the nearest $100 except for per
share data.
</FN>


</TABLE>
[LETTERHEAD OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS]


             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


To the Board of Directors of
BB&T Corporation:


We  have  examined   management's   assertion,   included  in  the  accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria,  that Branch  Banking & Trust Company (the Company)  complied with the
applicable  servicing  criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission's  Regulation  AB as of December  31, 2006 and for the year
then ended. The Company's  assertion covers "All prime loans originated  through
BB&T  origination  channels  from the 2001 vintage year through the 2006 vintage
year"  (the  Platform),   excluding  criteria  1122(d)(1)(i),   1122(d)(1)(iii),
1122(d)(3)(i) through 1122(d)(3)(iv),  1122(d)(4)(iii) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which
the  Company has  determined  are not  applicable  to the  servicing  activities
performed by it with respect to the Platform.  Management is responsible for the
Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis,  evidence  about the Company's  compliance  with the applicable
servicing  criteria  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as we  considered
necessary in the  circumstances.  Our examination  included  testing of selected
asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform,  testing of
selected servicing  activities related to the Platform,  and determining whether
the Company  processed those selected  transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Our procedures
were limited to the selected  transactions and servicing activities performed by
the Company  during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures  were not
designed to detect  noncompliance  arising  from  errors that may have  occurred
prior to or  subsequent  to our tests that may have  affected  the  balances  or
amounts  calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this
report.  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 servicing criteria.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned  applicable  servicing  criteria for the Company's Platform as of
and for the year ended  December  31,  2006 is fairly  stated,  in all  material
respects.




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 28, 2007
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6720 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grocery, farm, and 

food worker stabilization grant program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 12, 2023 

Ms. BUDZINSKI (for herself, Ms. CARAVEO, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. 

SORENSEN, Mr. THANEDAR, Ms. CROCKETT, Ms. NORTON, Ms. CRAIG, 

Ms. WATERS, Ms. TITUS, Mr. POCAN, and Ms. ADAMS) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grocery, 

farm, and food worker stabilization grant program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GROCERY, FARM, AND FOOD WORKER STA4 BILIZATION GRANT PROGRAM. 

5 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

6 (1) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—The term ‘‘eligible enti7 ty’’ means a membership organization, as deter8 mined by the Secretary, or labor union representing 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6720 IH

1 farmworkers, meat processing workers, or grocery 

2 workers. 

3 (2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

4 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

5 (b) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary, acting 

6 through the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing 

7 Service, shall establish a grant program to provide funding 

8 to eligible entities representing farmworkers, meat proc9 essing workers, and grocery workers for stabilization pay10 ments in the case of a natural disaster or other disaster, 

11 as determined by the Secretary. 

12 (c) REPORT.—Not later than 4 years after the date 

13 of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 

14 the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representa15 tives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

16 Forestry of the Senate a report describing the outcomes 

17 and evaluating the impacts of the program established 

18 under subsection (b). 

19 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

20 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

21 $50,000,000, to remain available until expended. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Thomas E. GILMORE and Percy McShan, Appellants, v. The GREENE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE et al., Appellees.

No. 24188.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 3, 1966.

Fred Wallace, New York City, for appellants.

Perry Hubbard, Tuscaloosa, Ala., for appellees. ”

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and GOLDBERG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the denial by the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama of a motion that the appellants be declared to be validly nominated candidates of the Freedom Party of Alabama for the General Election to be held in Greene County, Alabama, on November 8, 1966.

This proceeding is a motion filed in connection with an already pending suit under the above caption in the Northern District of Alabama. In effect, it is an appeal from the denial of a temporary injunction.

 We conclude that the trial court erred in its determination that the certificate of nomination filed by the Freedom Party as to these two candidates was invalid.

However, it appears that the appellants are, by their motion, seeking to be declared the candidates of the Freedom Party, whereas, by their original complaint they sought to be the legal candidates of the Democratic Party.

The Order of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded in order that the district court may consider the posture of the case in light of our ruling as to the certificate of nomination, and to enable the plaintiffs, if they see fit *329to do so, to make a determination as to which relief they now wish to seek before the court.

In the meantime, since it would be impossible, even if we were to grant the appellants’ motion completely, to have the ballot adequately prepared, at least so far as relates to the absentee ballots, by Election day, it is ordered that the election in Greene County be stayed, either as to these two offices, or as to all county offices, at the election of the defendants. In other words, we leave to the defendants the decision whether they wish to delay election of all county offices, or of just these two offices. The district court will then determine such other issues as may properly be before it after determining what effect, if any, to give to a choice of remedies after such choice is made by the plaintiffs.

The Judgment of this Court will issue forthwith.