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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE UNAUDITED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND THE UNAUDITED STATEMENT
OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED CONTAINED IN THE REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 OF BATTERIES BATTERIES, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             408
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (884)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,728
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,483
<PP&E>                                           1,529
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  23,424
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,143
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    23,424
<SALES>                                         34,478
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,478
<CGS>                                           21,458
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,458
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,484
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 481
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,055
<INCOME-TAX>                                       507
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                548
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       548
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11



</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 695 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify the use of certain taxes 

and revenues. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2023 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO (for herself, Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia, Mr. HUFFMAN, Mr. 

GARAMENDI, and Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify the use 

of certain taxes and revenues. 

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 ‘‘State and Local Gen5 eral Sales Tax Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. USE OF REVENUES. 

7 (a) WRITTEN ASSURANCES ON USE OF REVENUE.— 

8 Section 47107(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 

9 amended— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 695 IH

1 (1) in each of paragraphs (1) and (2) by strik2 ing ‘‘local taxes’’ and inserting ‘‘local excise taxes’’; 

3 (2) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘State tax’’ 

4 and inserting ‘‘State excise tax’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(4) This subsection does not apply to State or local 

7 general sales taxes nor to State or local generally applica8 ble sales taxes.’’. 

9 (b) RESTRICTION ON USE OF REVENUES.—Section 

10 47133 of title 49, United States Code, is amended— 

11 (1) in subsection (a) in the matter preceding 

12 paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘Local taxes’’ and insert13 ing ‘‘Local excise taxes’’; 

14 (2) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘local 

15 taxes’’ and inserting ‘‘local excise taxes’’; 

16 (3) in subsection (c) by striking ‘‘State tax’’ 

17 and inserting ‘‘State excise tax’’; and 

18 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(d) LIMITATION ON APPLICABILITY.—This sub20 section does not apply to— 

21 ‘‘(1) State or local general sales taxes; or 

22 ‘‘(2) State or local generally applicable sales 

23 taxes.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### Patterson *against*Smith & Keats.

Chancery*

[Mr. ffaggia for plaintiff: Mr. Guthrie for defendants.]

From the Circuit Court for Jefferson County.

*June*8.

Comp’t charges toat sífpievla was form 'the answer, t!’at he sanction-thing, without proof. A party whoso name has been f0r<red, or affix-e<* without his --authority, to a replevin bond. “PJ mamJam a for an injunction, 0^oeuSf so fer as it pur-f^ writ of error *coram*»o-but "the for” mer is tlie Leiter remedy.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of theGo'urt.

Alleging in his bill a forgery of his name—Patterson lenjoined the enforcement of a replevin bond to Smith ’■& Keats, purporting to have been signed by himself, as ‘surety for one Williams, the principal. The answer of Williams admits, as is also proved, that Patterson did not subscribe his name to the bond’; but alleges, that he ■approved the signature.

Without any proof whatever, of any authority to sigh *r*his name, or any ratification of an unauthorized subscnption of it to the bond, the Circuit Court dissolved the in- . .... , . , ... junction and dismissed the bill.

That decree cannot be sustained—if the Circuit Court aiad jurisdiction; nod wo are of the opinion that it had jurisdiction. As no suit had ever been brought or judgment rendered on the bond, a bill *quia*timet, for an injunction and cancellation of the bond-, so far as it purported to be an obligation by Patterson, might be sustained on the ground of fraud, and of a right, in equity, to prevention and security. It is true, that, he might have a legal remedy, in the nature of a writ of error *■coram vobis;*hut such a remedy cannot be exclusive; because the person whose -name has been forged, may not be apprized of the fact until such a proceeding shall have •been barred, or until he may have lost his proof. Hence a bill *quia timet*is a concurrent, and more effectual, remedy, and especially also, as, by such a proceeding, the ■complaining party may obtain a decree, not only for his •exoneration, but for the cancellation of the bond as to himself, so .that it can never, afterwards, be used against him, any where, at any time, or for any purpose.

Wherefore, it is the opinion of this Court, that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing the bill. '

Decree reversed, and cause remanded,
#### John A. Sheldon *versus*John Frink Junior.

The discontinuance of an action entered in court, must be proved by the record or an authenticated transcript.

Assumpsit on the following written promise of the defendant:— “I hereby agree .with John A. Sheldon to pay one half of the taxable costs in the suit commenced by him against me at the Hampden court in March current, he withdrawing said suit and making no further costs thereon.” On the trial of the present action, in the Court of Common Pleas, before *Strong*J., the plaintiff offered to prove by the testimony of Augustus Collins, his attorney in the suit in Hampden, that that action was withdrawn according to the contract, and that “ neither party ” was entered in the docket in that county. The judge decided that these facts could not be proved by the testimony of Collins, but must be proved by a copy of the record, and he directed a nonsuit; to which decision and direction the plaintiff excepted.

*Jones,*for the plaintiff,

cited as to the admissibility of the testimony, 3 Stark. Ev. '1044 and note 1 ; *Foster*v. *Trull, 12*Johns. R. 456 *; Hinman*v. *Brees,*13 Johns. R. 529.

*Sept. 98d,*

*576
      *Sept. 28th.*

Byington, *contra,*

cited 1 Stark. Ev. 150, 151, 250 3 Stark. Ev. 1043 ; *Scott*v. *Clare, 3*Campb. 236 ; *Taylor*v. *Henry,*2 Pick. 401 ; *Judge of Probate*v. *Briggs,*3 New Hampsli. Rep. 309 ; *Rhind*v. *Wilkinson,*2 Taunt. 237.

The case was continued *nisi.*

*Per Curiam.*

The exception in the present case is founded upon a rule strictly technical; still it is a well settled rule, founded in considerations of general expediency, that the judg ments and proceedings of a court of record must be proved by the record, or an authenticated transcript. The plaintiff’s case required him to show that a final judgment had been entered in the action in question, pending in another county. The evidence by the testimony of a witness, might have been very satisfactory in the particular case ; but by the general rulé, adopted for general convenience, we think it was inadmissible and was rightly rejected. The exception is overruled, and the judgment of the C. C. P. affirmed.1

See *Webb*v. Alexander, *7*Wend. 281
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 26, 2011 

y0919 

Order 

 

September 26, 2011 

143129 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143129 

 COA: 303154

Wayne CC: 09-029068-FC 

MARCUS MAKULSKI, Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 19, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 15  INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S LETTER REGARDING UNAUDITED FINANCIAL
            INFORMATION


July 22, 1998

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: GA Financial, Inc.

    1. Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-37837)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are aware that our report dated July 22, 1998 on our review of interim
financial information of GA Financial, Inc. for the three months and six month
period ended June 30, 1998 and included in GA Financial, Inc.'s quarterly report
on Form 10-Q for the period then ended is incorporated by reference in the
registration statment referred to above. Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the
Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered a part of the
registration statement prepared or certified by us within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

Very truly yours,


/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS **AUSTIN**

Honorable George n. cox state Health 

## orrhw Auetln, Texae

mir will aakfmfledge ‘rsoe%it or your letter 0r June 81, 191443,

regarding thq constitutionality or House Bill 825, e gsnera@ogd-i, drugs and aosti?tlcs eat introduced but not mydtsqfat ehy Regular EMsion of the 46th Leglsle 

## turo

. \ ‘,,

‘\ \ ‘>. ..

. ./

\ With nn&a&r: the &ur& here been Tory liberal .in oonrtru$rigvmaotnh~ts Qsq%&mdto proteot the publio health u&m the eta& .polSjr pliirer. Xxparts Vaughan, 93Cd&’ m J&3, 240 S1~ W .,,6?3; Cozlns ~8’

. state, 09 Crlm.,4to boar& 4’92; 28!W3. w. X%B.

o health-~ar&,_seldofi held unwarrented. f Dslegatlons or authority to See 12 R. 0. I,. 1206. In the -*i&d or 

### rood end **drug** lrgialation, uhllr eneatmnte or the state must not aonrliat with superior federal legislation, a broad lattitude is allowed the stats in proteoting its altizena from adulterated, impure or miabrand**ed**arti.ales In raopact to purely lntraetate transaotions if the enaetnwnt does not burden or interfere with interstate eomerce. Royal Baking Powder compenyvs. Enrerson (C.C.A. xck..l020) 270 Fed. 429, appeal dlaniased (1922), 43 Sup.Honorable George w. COX,Page 2

Ct. 166, 200U.S. 762, 67L. Ed. 96; MoDermott vs. State or Wisoonsin (1913) 288u. s. 156, 33sup. ct. 431, 57L. Ed. 754, Ann. Cas, 1915a, 39, 47 L.R.A. (N.S.) 984. In the case or H.B. 226 a studlous erfort seems to have bern madeto avoid aontllot with the Bsderal Food and Drugs Act, 62 Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C.A. Seas. 301-302.

Consequently, It is our opinion, andyou are respeotrully advised that so far as we oan asoertain rrom a oarerul study of H. B. 225without haring an opportunity to consider its relation to the multitude of diverse fact situatlons whlah might arise In its application, the bill does not offend the State or Federal Constitutions insofar aa it arreots Intrastate transactions.

Yours vdry truly ATTORNEY

CENERAL

OFTE$AS

**BY** Asafstant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Cause No. DA 22- 0286

__________________________________________________________________ STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DARRIN JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________ **ORDER**

__________________________________________________________________ Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 10, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

July 12 2022

07/12/2022
Case Number: DA 22-0286
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12710-12711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04680]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP)--RFA-CE22-002, Grants To Support New Investigators 
in Conducting Research Related To Preventing Interpersonal Violence 
Impacting Children and Youth; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Disease, 
Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel 
(SEP)--RFA-CE22-002, Grants to Support New Investigators in Conducting 
Research Related to Preventing Interpersonal Violence Impacting 
Children and Youth, March 8-9, 2022, 8:30 a.m., EDT-5:30 p.m., EDT, Web 
Conference, in the original FRN. The meeting was published in the 
Federal Register on January 5, 2022, Volume 87, Number 3, page 460.
    The meeting is being amended to change the meeting date and should 
read as follows:
    RFA-CE22-002, Grants to Support New Investigators in Conducting 
Research Related to Preventing

[[Page 12711]]

Interpersonal Violence Impacting Children and Youth: March 8, 2022.
    The meeting is closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aisha L. Wilkes, M.P.H., Scientific 
Review Officer, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 
4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop S106-9, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, 
Telephone (404) 639-6473, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5312043a3f383620133037307d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d69781bfbabdb3a596b5b2b5f8b1b9a0">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-04680 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Tillman OVERSTREET, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23550.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 11, 1966.

Ernest Morgan, U. S. Atty., for appellee.

Before WISDOM, BELL and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction of appellant for conspiring to violate the marihuana laws, 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a, was affirmed by this court. Overstreet v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 321 F.2d 459, cert. den., 376 U.S. 919, 84 S.Ct. 675, 11 L.Ed.2d 614. We held that there was no error in severing that part of the conspiracy count which rested on a violation of 26 U.S.C.A. § 4744(a)1 from the charge of conspiring to violate 21 U.S.C.A. § 176a. We also held that the evidence warranted the conviction, and that there was no error in treating co-defendants differently from appellant.

It appeared that some of the co-defendants were allowed to plead guilty to conspiring to violate § 4744(a) only, and thus they received sentences shorter in time than the sentence imposed on appellant. This rankles appellant and in his motion, filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255, he claims that the differing treatment resulting from the splitting or severing of the conspiracy count denied him equal protection of the laws and due process of law. This contention avails appellant nothing. It is what we decided against him on his appeal from the conviction.

Appellant also contends that this differing treatment coupled with his longer sentence is cruel and unusual punishment. This is a frivolous contention. The sentence is within the maximum provided by law. See Hornbrook v. United States, 5 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 112. The District Court was correct in denying appellant’s motion.

Affirmed.

1

. Referred to inadvertently as § 4744(1).
#### Tyrone ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Aric SIMMONS, Advance Practice Nurse, Correct Care Solutions, Defendant-Appellee

No. 17-1429

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: August 15, 2017

Filed: August 17, 2017

Tyrone Ellis, Pro Se

Brent J. Eubanks, Humphries & Odum, Little Rock, AR, Defendant-Appellee

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Tyrone Ellis appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C, § 1983 action, in which he alleged that defendant Aric Simmons was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Upon careful de novo review, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review), we conclude that summary judgment was proper because, as explained by the district court, Ellis failed to show that Simmons knew of his medical complaint during the period of delay in treatment. See Fourte v. Faulkner Cty., Ark., 746 F.3d 384, 387 (8th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerome T. Kear-ney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
#### Shawn HAWK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16885

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed June 30, 2017

Shawn Hawk, Pro Se

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Shawn Hawk appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging the circumstances under which he was denied parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Hamilton v. Brown,*630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hawk’s action because Hawk failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible due process claim, and failed to allege that he was otherwise “deprived ... of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes” by “defendants act[ing] under color of state law.” *Krainski v. Nev. ex. rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ.,*616 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (elements of procedural due process claim); *WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller,*197 F.3d 367, 372 (9th Cir. 1999) (elements of § 1983 action); *see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (factual allegations must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”).

Contrary to Hawk’s contentions, the magistrate judge has the authority to dismiss Hawk’s original complaint with leave to amend. *See McKeever v. Block,*932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[A] magistrate *887can ... dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without approval by the court.”).

We reject as meritless Hawk’s contention that the district court violated his rights to equal protection and access to the courts.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04681]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP)--CE22-003, Rigorously Evaluating Programs and 
Policies To Prevent Child Sexual Abuse (CSA); Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Disease, 
Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel 
(SEP)--CE22-003, Rigorously Evaluating Programs and Policies to Prevent 
Child Sexual Abuse (CSA), April 19-20, 2022, 8:30 a.m., EDT-5:30 p.m., 
EDT, Web Conference, in the original FRN. The meeting was published in 
the Federal Register on January 14, 2022, Volume 87, Number 10, page 
2439.
    The meeting is being amended to change the meeting date and should 
read as follows:
    CE22-003, Rigorously Evaluating Programs and Policies to Prevent 
Child Sexual Abuse (CSA): April 19, 2022.
    The meeting is closed to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aisha L. Wilkes, M.P.H., Scientific 
Review Officer, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, 
4770 Buford Highway NE, Mailstop S106-9, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, 
Telephone (404) 639-6473, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#511006383d3a3422113235327f363e27"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d09187b9bcbbb5a390b3b4b3feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>.
    The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the 
Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices 
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Kalwant Smagh,
Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief 
Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-04681 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>