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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q OF THE MEAD CORPORATION FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD
ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

THIS SCHEDULE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 11 OF THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND
SECTION 323 OF THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939, OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE
LIABILITIES OF SUCH SECTIONS, NOR SHALL IT BE DEEMED A PART OF ANY REGISTRATION
STATEMENT TO WHICH IT RELATES.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              19
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      611
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,325
<PP&E>                                           5,609
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,382
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              844
<BONDS>                                          1,428
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           155
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,145
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,382
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,167
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      951
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  27
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     53
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 31
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        31
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        

</TABLE>
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|U.S. Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|U.S. Natural Gas Number of Residential Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0     | Year-1     | Year-2     | Year-3     | Year-4     | Year-5     | Year-6     | Year-7     | Year-8     | Year-9    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ---------- | ----------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |            |            |            |            |            |            |            | 47,710,444 | 48,474,449 | 49,309,593
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 50,187,178 | 51,593,206 | 52,331,397 | 52,535,411 | 53,392,557 | 54,322,179 | 55,263,673 | 56,186,958 | 57,321,746 | 58,223,229
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 59,252,728 | 60,286,364 | 61,107,254 | 61,871,450 | 62,496,134 | 63,616,827 | 64,166,280 | 64,964,769 | 65,073,996 | 65,329,582
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 65,542,345 | 65,940,522 | 66,375,134 | 66,812,393 | 67,196,751 | 67,923,465 | 68,433,125 | 69,067,541 | 69,737,549 | 70,431,299
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 71,540,659 | 71,951,957 | 72,518,520 |            |            |            |            |            |            |           
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### COM. v. NOTTINGHAM, J.

2084 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/21/2017

CP-41-CR-0001190-2015

(Lycoming)

Remanded
047P17

#### State v. Avery Joe Lail, Jr.

1. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA16-608)

2. State’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

1. Denied

2. Dismissed as moot
#### COM. v. PICKETT, A.

3484 EDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/17/2017

CP-51-CR-0011067-2012 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                      
|View History: Annual                                                
|View History: Annual                                                
|View History:                                                       
|                                                                    
|Mississippi Natural Gas % of Total Residential Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                    
|                                                                    
|Mississippi Natural Gas % of Total Residential Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 0.57   | 0.56   | 0.56   | 0.58   | 0.55   | 0.55   | 0.52  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0.54   | 0.59   | 0.54   | 0.52   | 0.50   | 0.51   | 0.49   | 0.47   | 0.49   | 0.49  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0.57   | 0.52   | 0.47   | 0.51   | 0.56   | 0.50   | 0.46   | 0.42   | 0.49   | 0.46  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0.44   | 0.45   | 0.45   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
388P16

#### Tawoos Bazargani, MD v. Dr. David Morris Marks, Duke University Hospital, Duke University, and Infectious Disease Control Association

1. Pit’s *Pro Se*Motion for Notice of Appeal (COA16-176)

2. Pit’s *Pro Se*Petition for Rehearing

3. Pit’s *Pro Se*Motion to Supplement Notice of Appeal

1. Dismissed *ex mero motu*

2. Dismissed

3. Allowed
Exhibit 24.12

LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY

Know all by these presents, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints each of Catherine Hill and Cynthia Scheuer, signing singly, the undersigned's true and lawful attorney-in-fact to: 

(1)  execute for and on behalf of the undersigned, in the undersigned's capacity as an officer and/or director of Mechanical Technology, Inc. (the "Company"), Forms 3, 4, and 5 in accordance with Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules thereunder; 

(2)  do and perform any and all acts for and on behalf of the undersigned which may be necessary or desirable to complete and execute any such Form 3, 4, or 5, complete and execute any amendment or amendments thereto, and timely file such form with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and any stock exchange or similar authority; and 

(3) take any other action of any type whatsoever in connection with the foregoing which, in the opinion of such attorney-in-fact, may be of benefit to, in the best interest of, or legally required by, the undersigned, it being understood that the documents executed by such attorney-in-fact on behalf of the undersigned pursuant to this Power of Attorney shall be in such form and shall contain such terms and conditions as such attorney-in-fact may approve in such attorney-in-fact's discretion. 

The undersigned hereby grants to each such attorney-in-fact full power and authority to do and perform any and every act and thing whatsoever requisite, necessary, or proper to be done in the exercise of any of the rights and powers herein granted, as fully to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or could do if personally present, with full power of substitution or revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that such attorney-in-fact, or such attorney-in-fact's substitute or substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this power of attorney and the rights and powers herein granted.  The undersigned acknowledges that the foregoing attorneys-in-fact, in serving in such capacity at the request of the undersigned, are not assuming, nor is the Company assuming, any of the undersigned's responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This Power of Attorney shall remain in full force and effect until the undersigned is no longer required to file Forms 3, 4, and 5 with respect to the undersigned's holdings of and transactions in securities issued by the Company, unless earlier revoked by the undersigned in a signed writing delivered to the foregoing attorneys-in-fact. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Power of Attorney to be executed as of this 15th day of January , 2003. 

s/Beno Sternlicht
No. 12-6873.

#### Ciacci *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 APRIL 16, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-14685

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 09-60085-CR-JIC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PANCHRIAL LARUE JENKINS,

a.k.a. Pancho,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(April 16, 2010)

Before CARNES, MARCUS and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Panchrial Larue Jenkins appeals his sentence to 108 months of imprisonment
for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine hydrochloride. 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), 846. Jenkins challenges his classification as a

career offender. We affirm.

The presentence investigation report identified Jenkins as a career offender.

See United States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1.1(a) (Nov. 2002). The report stated

that Jenkins had been convicted in March 1991 of burglary of a dwelling and in

May 2005 of selling or delivering cocaine. With a total offense level of 29 and a

criminal history of IV, the report provided a guideline range between 151 and 188

months of imprisonment.

Jenkins objected to his treatment as a career offender. Jenkins argued that

his conviction for burglary did not qualify as a predicate offense because, after his

conviction, he was denied counsel at a hearing to revoke his controlled release.

The record established that Jenkins had requested, but had been denied, counsel for

his revocation hearing. Jenkins admitted that he had violated the terms of his

controlled release and had been reincarcerated.

The district court sentenced Jenkins as a career offender. At Jenkins’s

request, the district court varied downward from the guideline range. The district

court sentenced Jenkins to 108 months of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised

release.

2
Jenkins argues that the district court could not rely on his burglary

conviction to classify him as a career offender, but we disagree. Jenkins failed to

present any evidence that his conviction for burglary was obtained in violation of

his right to counsel. Jenkins’s argument about the later revocation of his controlled

release is beside the point. Jenkins argues that is entitled to relief based on

Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 122 S. Ct. 1764 (2002), but in Shelton, the

defendant was denied counsel for his underlying conviction. Moreover, a

probationer is not entitled to counsel at a revocation proceeding unless he presents

a “timely and colorable claim” that he is innocent of the violations charged or

counsel is needed to “develop or present” a defense. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S.

778, 791, 93 S. Ct. 1756, 1764 (1973). The district court did not err by sentencing

Jenkins as a career offender.

Jenkins’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

3
#### Michael Scott SHEMANSKY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-991

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 10, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Marc L. Lubet, Judge.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 13.1

  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

          In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of China GrenTech
Corporation Limited (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2007 as
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Yingjie Gao, as Chairman of the board of directors and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, and Rong Yu, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
his/her knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Exchange Act; and

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


By: /s/ Yingjie Gao
    ---------------------------------
Name: Yingjie Gao
Title: Chairman of the board of
       directors and Chief Executive
       Officer
Date: July 15, 2008


By: /s/ Rong Yu
    ---------------------------------
Name: Rong Yu
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: July 15, 2008

          This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b)
under the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed
"filed" by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or
otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
[PARENTE RANDOLPH LETTERHEAD]



                        INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT


We have reviewed the accompanying balance sheet of Mediscience  Technology Corp.
(the  "Company") as of May 31, 2000,  and the related  statement of  operations,
cash flows and stockholders' equity for the three-month period then ended. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.


We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America,  the
objective  of which is the  expression  of an opinion  regarding  the  financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the  accompanying  financial  statements for them to be in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Certain  conditions  indicate  that the  Company  may be unable to continue as a
going  concern.  The  accompanying  financial  statements  do  not  include  any
adjustments  to the  financial  statements  that might be  necessary  should the
Company be unable to continue as a going concern.



                                                        /s/ Parente Randolph, PC
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Parente Randolph, PC

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 19, 2001
#### COM. v. BARNES, M.

149 WDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/07/2017

CP-25-CR-0000771-2015

(Erie)

Affirmed
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History:                                                                 
|                                                                              
|Massachusetts Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                              
|                                                                              
|Massachusetts Natural Gas Number of Industrial Consumers  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 5,626  | 7,199  | 13,057
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 6,539  | 5,006  | 8,723  | 7,283  | 8,019  | 10,447 | 10,952 | 11,058 | 11,245 | 8,027 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 8,794  | 9,750  | 9,090  | 11,272 | 10,949 | 12,019 | 12,456 | 12,678 | 36,928 | 19,208
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 12,751 | 10,721 | 10,840 | 11,063 | 10,946 | 11,266 | 11,334 | 11,196 | 11,205 | 11,196
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 12,240 | 11,223 | 11,823 |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### COM. v. MACHALETTE, A.

654 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/07/2017

CP-51-CR-0012069-2013

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed