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

<ARTICLE> 5
<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>                                           3,806
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,806
<PP&E>                                          13,869
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,609)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,884
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           901
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,377,901)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,267
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    22
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,069
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (57,477)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (57,447)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (57,447)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.03)
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-5082.

#### Ruelas Torres *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Galaxy  Nutritional  Foods, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period  ended  December 31, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I,  Salvatore J. Furnari,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the
     Company.


                                        /s/ Salvatore J. Furnari
                                        ------------------------
                                        Salvatore J. Furnari
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        February 20, 2004
<TABLE>

                                                                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

                                     THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, INC.


Computation of weighted average number of shares outstanding used in determining 
primary and fully diluted earnings per share:

<CAPTION>
                                                             Thirteen Weeks Ended    
(Shares in 000's)                                          November 1,    November 2,
                                                                  1997           1996



Primary

<S>                                                             <C>            <C>
1. Weighted average number of 
   common shares outstanding                                    49,905         39,413


2. Assumed exercise of certain
   stock options based on average
   market value                                                    191            188


3. Weighted average number of
   shares used in primary per
   share computations                                           50,096         39,601





Fully diluted (A)

1. Weighted average number of
   common shares outstanding                                    49,905         39,413


2. Assumed exercise of all dilutive
   options based on higher of average 
   or closing market value                                         194            190

3. Weighted average number of
   shares used in fully diluted 
   per share computations                                       50,099         39,603





(A)  This calculation is submitted in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 Release No. 9083 although not required by Footnote 2 to Paragraph 14 of APB
Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of less than 3%.
</TABLE>
                                       <PAGE>
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 1341 Directorate Identifier: 2011

- NE

- 41

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

co st ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet

R 

### eplace starter adapter assembly 4.0 $ 340.00 $500 $ 840.00 

### 195 $163,800.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $163,800 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated

Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory P olicies and Procedures:**  Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrasta te Aviation in Alaska:**  This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
#### *In re*Integración de Salas de Verano.

*Número:*ES-2017-1

*Resuelto:*19 de mayo de 2017

RESOLUCIÓN

En conformidad con la Regla 4(d) del Reglamento de este Tribunal, 4 LPRA Ap. XXI-A, culminada la sesión, se constituyen las siguientes Salas de Verano para funcionar *139durante el receso del Tribunal entre el 1 de julio de 2017 al 30 de septiembre de 2017:

*Del 1 de julio al 31 de julio de 2017*

Hon. Maite D. Oronoz Rodríguez, *presidenta*

Hon. Anabelle Rodríguez Rodríguez

Hon. Mildred G. Pabón Charneco

*Del 1 de agosto al 31 de agosto de 2017*

Hon. Roberto Feliberti Cintrón, *presidente*

Hon. Luis F. Estrella Martínez

Hon. Ángel Colón Pérez

*Del 1 de septiembre al 30 de septiembre de 2017*

Hon. Rafael L. Martínez Torres, *presidente*

Hon. Erick V. Kolthoff Caraballo

Hon. Edgardo Rivera García

De ser necesario sustituir a algún Juez o Jueza que no pueda intervenir en algún asunto ante su consideración, se seguirá el procedimiento establecido en la Regla 4(b) del Reglamento del Tribunal Supremo, 4 LPRA Ap. XXI-A. El Tribunal continuará certificando opiniones y sentencias durante este periodo.

*Publíquese.*

Lo acordó el Tribunal y certifica el Secretario del Tribunal Supremo.

(Fdo.) Juan Ernesto Dávila Rivera *Secretario del Tribunal Supremo*
No. 108,929

#### In the Matter of Scott C. Stockwell, *Petitioner.*

(377 P.3d 413)

On March 1, 2013, this court suspended the petitioner, Scott C. Stockwell, from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of 1 year. See *In re Stockwell,*296 Kan. 860, 295 P.3d 572 (2013). The court further ordered that the petitioner undergo a hearing, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219 (2015 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 403), prior to consideration of a petition for reinstatement.

On March 3, 2014, petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement. On July 2, 2014, petitioner filed an amended petition for reinstatement. On July 21, 2014, the court referred the amended petition to the Disciplinary Administrator for investigation and hearing. On January 14, 2016, a hearing panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys conducted a hearing to consider the petitioner s petition for reinstatement.

On March 16, 2016, the hearing panel filed its report setting out the circumstances leading to the petitioners suspension, a summary of the evidence presented, and its findings and recommendations. The panel unanimously recommended that the petitioners petition for reinstatement of his license to practice law in Kansas be granted, subject to practice supervision as detailed in the petitioners plan of supervision and as amended in the final hearing report.

The court, after carefully considering the record, accepts the findings and recommendations of the hearing panel and grants the petitioner s petition for reinstatement of his license to practice law in Kansas, subject to practice supervision as detailed in the petitioner’s plan of supervision and as amended in the final hearing report.

It Is Therefore Ordered that the petitioner be reinstated to the practice of law in Kansas conditioned upon his compliance *2with the annual continuing legal education requirements and upon his payment of all fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission and subject to his plan of supervision as amended in the final hearing report. Upon proof provided to the Clerk of the Appellate Courts that the petitioner has complied with the annual continuing legal education requirements and has paid the fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission, the Clerk is directed to enter the petitioners name upon the roster of attorneys engaged in the practice of law in Kansas.

Effective this 28th day of March, 2016.

It Is Further Ordered that this order be published in the official Kansas Reports and that the costs herein be assessed to the petitioner.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                 DEAN WITTER REALTY INCOME PARTNERSHIP IV, L.P.

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Dean Witter Realty Income Partnership
IV, L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, William B. Smith, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Dean Witter Realty Fourth Income Properties Inc., the Managing General Partner
of the Partnership, certify pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 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 Partnership.


/s/William B. Smith
-----------------------------------------------------
William B. Smith
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Dean Witter Realty Fourth Income Properties Inc., as
Managing General Partner of Dean Witter Realty Income
Partnership IV, L.P.

Date: November 14, 2002
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

 

	Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Harold's Stores, Inc.. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 2, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

________________ 

No. 10-1677 

________________ 

MICHAEL E. CUNNINGHAM, Appellant 

v. 

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY; 

ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH 

________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Civil No. 2-07-cv-01615) 

District Judge: The Honorable David Stewart Cercone 

_______________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

October 22, 2010 

BEFORE: HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR., and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges. 

(Filed: November 30, 2010) 

_______________ 

OPINION OF THE COURT 

_______________ 

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. 

 Appellant Michael Cunningham, a former Enterprise employee, abused alcohol at 

a company party and was fired. The District Court found that Cunningham was not 

disabled under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101. 
Additionally, the District Court found Cunningham’s ADA retaliation claim lacking 

because he had not engaged in a protected activity. See Cunningham v. Enterprise RentA-Car Co., 2010 WL 724507 (W.D. Pa. 2010). The District Court granted summary 

judgment in favor of Enterprise. Our review of a district court’s grant of summary 

judgment is plenary. See Turner v. Hershey Chocolate U.S.A., 440 F.3d 604, 611 (3d Cir. 

2006). Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 56(c). In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view all the facts in the 

light most favorable to Cunningham as the non-moving party, and draw all reasonable 

inferences in his favor. See Bowers v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 475 F.3d 524, 535 

(3d Cir. 2007). 

 Because we write only for the benefit of the parties, we assume familiarity with 

the facts of this civil action and the proceedings in the District Court. Cunningham was a 

rental manager for Enterprise. At a company holiday party, he poured beer down a 

coworker’s dress, and argued with a cab driver in front of other Enterprise employees. 

Afterward, Cunningham discussed the incidents with his supervisor by telephone. 

Cunningham later emailed his supervisor to inform him that he had a drinking problem 

and would seek professional help. Cunningham also called Enterprise’s employee 

assistance program. Based on his conduct at the party, however, Enterprise terminated 

Cunningham’s employment. 

After our independent plenary review of the record in this case and the arguments 

put forth in the briefs, we will affirm. Summary judgment is proper where a party has 

2 
3 

demonstrated that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and is, therefore, entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We find that summary judgment 

was proper in this case, and will affirm essentially for the reasons stated in the District 

Court’s considered opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                        5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Annual
Report of Western Beef, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended
January 1, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    JAN-01-1999
<CASH>                                               12,086
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         6,154
<ALLOWANCES>                                            522
<INVENTORY>                                          15,290
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     36,691
<PP&E>                                               71,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                       24,267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       86,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                22,310
<BONDS>                                              11,257
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                274
<OTHER-SE>                                           48,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         86,357
<SALES>                                             298,990
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    298,990
<CGS>                                               218,865
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       218,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     73,777
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      985
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       5,363
<INCOME-TAX>                                          2,011
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   3,352
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          3,352
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .61
        

</TABLE>
**Meeting Summary EPA**  **Meeting with “Reach the Decision Makers” on Mancozeb May 29, 2014** 
**Attendees US**  **EPA Office of Pesticide Programs**  Pesticide Re

- evaluation Division : Rick Keigwin, Michael Goodis, Patricia Parrott, Tracy Perry, Richard Dumas Health Effect Division : Dana Vogel, Jess Rowland , Eli zabeth Mendez, Michael Metzger, David Miller, Shanna Recore, Elizabeth Evans, Carol Christensen, Jeff Evans, Katelynn King Registration Division : Cynthia Giles

- Parker, Hope Johnson Field and External Affairs Division : Kevin Keaney, Ashley Nelsen Office of General Counsel : Michelle Knorr (for FIFRA

- related questions)
**Reach the Decision Makers**  **(REACH) Team**  **1** Jennifer Runkle , Postdoctoral Fellow, Emory University Joan Flocks , Director, Social Policy Division, Levin College of Law, University of Florida Anne Lang Dunlop , Associate Professor, Emory University Jeannie Economos , Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project Coordinator, Farmworker Association of Florida
**Meeting Summary** Representatives of the EPA Office of Pesticide P rograms ’ Pesticide Re

- evaluation Division , Health Effect Division, Registration Division, and Field and External Affairs Division met with a REACH team to discuss mancozeb. The team presented their concerns regarding occupational exposure to mancozeb and potential developmental and reproductive effects. This concern is based on the team’s systematic review of mancozeb literature, which it will formally submit to the Agency for consideration in the registration review of mancozeb

. The public portion of the mancozeb registration review is scheduled to begin in June 2015, with the posting of the preliminary work plan and supporting documents for comment. The Agency noted that it would review the REACH team’s findings during registration review and that it would add their policy brief/ summary of scientific findings to the mancozeb registration review public docket

.

1 Reach the Decision Makers is a program administered through the University of California at San Francisco’s Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment ( http://prhe.uscf.edu/preh/REACH.html .)

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE  COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE TWENTY-FOUR WEEK PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER
18,  1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000
       
<S>                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      MAY-02-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                           OCT-18-1997
<CASH>                                                      13,274
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              120,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 3,538
<INVENTORY>                                                172,484
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           316,803
<PP&E>                                                     237,706
<DEPRECIATION>                                             115,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             604,461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      275,968
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                    73,905
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 214,008
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               604,461
<SALES>                                                  1,458,599
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         1,458,599
<CGS>                                                    1,300,710
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            1,300,710
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           109,695
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           1,781
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             48,269
<INCOME-TAX>                                                18,753
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         29,516
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                                29,516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0.62
        

</TABLE>