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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10 Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                         110,681
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,236,046
<ALLOWANCES>                                    50,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,848,804
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,047,718
<PP&E>                                      26,601,978
<DEPRECIATION>                              15,557,753
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,140,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,460,642
<BONDS>                                      1,983,067
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       638,525
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,044,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,140,605
<SALES>                                     10,654,801
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,654,801
<CGS>                                        9,087,298
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,087,298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               863,234
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                636,338
<INCOME-TAX>                                   217,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            419,338
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   419,338
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .66
        

</TABLE>
#### Com. v. Brown

09/21/2015

286 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 375
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary Sprinkle, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 201]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 6, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly permitted defendant to proceed pro se at trial after a thorough colloquy at which the court ensured that defendant was aware of the disadvantages and risks of representing himself and the important role of a lawyer *(see People v Arroyo,*98 NY2d 101 [2002]). The court, which was not required to follow any particular formula *(id.*at 104), adequately conveyed the necessary warnings.

Although the court should have granted defendant’s request for a jury charge on the agency defense with respect to the charge of possession with intent to sell, we find the error to be harmless *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]), since *132the proof of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and defendant’s testimony had been impeached by his prior criminal history and use of aliases. Moreover, had defendant’s request to charge been granted, the People would then have been allowed to introduce evidence of defendant’s prior drug sale convictions, making it unlikely that defendant would have received a more favorable verdict.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling, which, among other things, precluded the People from eliciting that several of defendant’s numerous convictions were for selling drugs, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]; *People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to select two underlying facts to elicit from each of defendant’s two robbery convictions *(see People v Stevens,*237 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*90 NY2d 864 [1997]). Defendant received sufficient notice of the facts that the prosecutor might elicit, and was able to make an intelligent decision whether or not to testify. The facts ultimately selected by the prosecutor were probative of defendant’s credibility.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions, including his procedural claim relating to his sentencing, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
#### E.R. v. J.N.B. 28

03/23/2016

72 MAL(2016)

28

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super,, 129 A.3d 521
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 Quarterly Report of Millipore Corporation (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the fiscal period ended July 1, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, Martin D. Madaus, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Kathleen B.
Allen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge:



| | (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/ MARTIN D. MADAUS *                    
|Martin D. Madaus                          
|President and Chief Executive Officer     
|August 10, 2006                           
|                                          
|/s/ KATHLEEN B. ALLEN *                   
|Kathleen B. Allen                         
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|August 10, 2006                           

---

|* | - A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Millipore Corporation and will be retained by Millipore Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) AND SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Mines Management, Inc., a Idaho Corporation, (the Company) hereby certifies to such officers knowledge that:



1.

This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mines Management, Inc. 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mines Management, Inc.



Date:  May 12, 2004

/s/ James H. Moore

________________________________

James H. Moore

Chief Financial Officer
# First quarter employees of the quarter

/ Published Feb. 19, 2020

Defense Logistics Agency Energy Commander Air Force Brig. Gen. Albert Miller announced Energy’s first quarter, fiscal year 2020 military and civilian employees of the quarter.

The DLA Energy service members, employees and strategic goals winners will move on to compete at the agency-wide program. 

“Please help me in congratulating these teammates for their amazing accomplishments,” Miller said in an email to the workforce. “If you see these outstanding team players in the halls, at meetings or just going about your daily business, please stop and thank them.”

**Field Grade Officer Category:**

Navy Lt. Cmdr. John Renquist, DLA Energy Middle East 

**Company Grade Category:**

Army Capt. Justin James Rojek, DLA Energy Middle East 

**Senior NCO Category:**

Army Master Sgt. Steven Latham, DLA Energy Europe & Africa

**DLA Energy civilian winners are:**

Agnes Eugenio, DLA Energy Middle East, in the GS/WG/WL 7-12 category and 

Robert Barta, DLA Energy Korea, in the GS 13-15/WS category

**DLA Director's Strategic Goals Award nomination:**

DLA Energy Korea Plans and Operations Team in the Small Team Category for strategic goal areas of Warfighter First and Global Posture.

•    Air Force 1st Lt. Jacob D. Bierschbach

•    Air Force 1st Lt. John C. Lucas

•    Robert Barta

“We know that no one succeeds alone, so I offer my personal thanks to everyone who was part of the larger team that continues to make us successful day-in and day-out,” Miller said. “Best of luck to all of them at the next level. Again, congratulations to all the winners as well as to those who were submitted for competition!”
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2113

To remove the embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 12 (legislative day, MAY 2), 1994

Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To remove the embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

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

3 SECTION 1. UNITED STATES ARMS EMBARGO OF THE GOV4 ERNMENT OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

5 (a) PROHIBITION.—Neither the President nor any

6 other member of the Executive Branch of the United

7 States Government shall interfere with the transfer of con8 ventional arms appropriate to the self-defense needs of the

9 Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

10 (b) TERMINATION.—The President shall terminate

11 the United States arms embargo of the Government of

12 Bosnia and Herzegovina upon receipt from that govern-
2

S 2113 IS

1 ment of a request for assistance in exercising its right of

2 self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Char3 ter.

4 (c) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, the term

5 ‘‘United States arms embargo of the Government of

6 Bosnia and Herzegovina’’ means the application to the

7 Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina of—

8 (1) the policy adopted July 10, 1991, and pub9 lished in the Federal Register of July 19, 1991 (58

10 Fed. Reg. 33322) under the heading ‘‘Suspension of

11 Munitions Export Licenses to Yugoslavia’’; and

12 (2) any similar policy being applied by the

13 United States Government as of the date of receipt

14 of the request described in subsection (a) pursuant

15 to which approval is routinely denied for transfers of

16 defense articles and defense services to the former

17 Yugoslavia.

18 (d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as au19 thorization for deployment of United States forces in the

20 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina for any purpose, in21 cluding training, support, or delivery of military equip22 ment.

Æ
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1810

To require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture

to charge fair market value for permits issued on public lands and

National Forests for communication uses, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 31 (legislative day, JANUARY 25), 1994

Mr. BUMPERS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary

of Agriculture to charge fair market value for permits

issued on public lands and National Forests for communication uses, 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. COMMUNICATION PERMITS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—No permit, lease, or authorization

5 for the use of any area of the public lands or National

6 Forests for communication uses, including but not limited

7 to radio and television broadcast, mobile radio, cellular

8 telephone, or microwave relay facilities, shall remain in
2

S 1810 IS

1 force and effect after October 1, 1994, unless, by such

2 date, and by October 1 of each year thereafter, the holder

3 of such permit, lease, or authorization pays to the Sec4 retary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as

5 appropriate, an amount equal to the fair market value,

6 as determined by such Secretary, of the right to use and

7 occupy such area for such communication uses.

8 (b) DEFINITION.—For the purposes of this Act, the

9 term ‘‘public lands’’ shall have the same meaning as de10 fined in section 103(e) of the Federal Land Policy Man11 agement Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1702(e)).

Æ
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                               
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                         
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                         
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|Price of Sabine Pass, LA Natural Gas Exports to Malta (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Price of Sabine Pass, LA Natural Gas Exports to Malta (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                       

|Year                                                                                                                              | Jan  | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul  | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---- | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
|2017                                                                                                                              | 4.70 |     |     |     |     |     |      |     |     |     |     |    
|2018                                                                                                                              |      |     |     |     |     |     | 6.70 |     |     |     |     |    
|2019                                                                                                                              |      |     |     | W   |     |     |      |     |     |     |     |    
|                                                                                                                                 
|2020                                                                                                                              | W    |     |     |     |     |     |      |     |     |     |     |    
|2021                                                                                                                              |      |     |     | W   |     |     |      |     |     |     |     |    
|- = 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
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 2 2 , 2021

NO. 03

- 19

- 00238

- CV

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Appellant s

v.

Zertu ch e Construction, LLC, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

REVERSED AND REMANDED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the tr i a l court on March 29, 2019

.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible

error in the order

. Therefore, the Co urt reverses the trial court’s interlocutory order granting

temporary injunctive rel ief, dissolves the temporary injunction, and remands the case to the trial

court for further proceedings

. A ppell ee shall pay all c osts relating to this appeal, both in this

Court and in the court below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                           1,155
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      296
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,278
<PP&E>                                          67,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,581
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,939
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,561
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,581
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,544
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (50)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,825
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,372)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (84)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,288)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,288)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.73)
        

</TABLE>
#### F. Zacherl, Inc. v. Flaherty Mechanical Contractors, LLC; West Allegheny School Dist., In re

08/16/2016

53-54 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Cmwlth., 131 A.3d 103
2016-0053.

#### State ex rel. Logan Clay Prods. Co. v. Indus. Comm.

Franklin App. No. 14AP-808, 2015-Ohio-5235. On appellant’s application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 14 (Thursday, January 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-177-000]

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Request 
Under Blanket Authorization

January 15, 1998.
    Take notice that on January 9, 1998, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), 200 North Third Street, Suite 300, 
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501, filed a request with the Commission in 
Docket No. CP98-177-000, pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of 
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for 
authorization to utilize existing taps for transportation of natural 
gas deliveries to Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. (Montana-Dakota) 
authorized in blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-487-000, et 
al., all as more fully set forth in the request on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.
    Williston Basin proposes to transport natural gas to Montana-Dakota 
at three existing transmission line taps, for ultimate use by 
additional end-use customers. The taps are located in Dawson County and 
Richland County, Montana, and Pennington County, South Dakota.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after the 
Commission has issued this notice, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the 
Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or 
notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If 
no protest is filed within the allowed time, the proposed activity 
shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time 
allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn 
within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant 
request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant 
to Section 7 of the NGA.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1452 Filed 1-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```