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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
DECEMBER 31, 1996 BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         132,483
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,240,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                 13,607,758
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,363,969
<PP&E>                                       7,240,046
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,087,143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,153,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,461,717
<BONDS>                                     28,555,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,547
<OTHER-SE>                                 (9,881,323)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,153,941
<SALES>                                     41,275,477
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,275,477
<CGS>                                       32,415,051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               38,548,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             996,253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,730,345
<INCOME-TAX>                                   588,317
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,142,028
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,142,028
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62


</TABLE>
volume (sorry!) 

Todd Ramaly to: Terri Zick 

Cc: Christopher Lambesis 

03/18/2008 05:46 PM 

From: 

To: 

Cc: 

Todd Ramaly/R5/USEPA/US 

Terri Zick <tzick@cticompanies.com> 

Christopher Lambesis/R5/USEPA/US@EPA 

Terri, 

You responded as follows to the volume question: 

"We had the opportunity to discuss the maximum anticipated volume of filter cake, and believe that 168 

tons (as initially described in Section 2 of the delisting petition) will be a conservative waste generation 

volume for the purposes of establishing a maximum annual waste generation rate. We would, therefore, 

request that we utilize 168 tons as the maximum annual waste volume." 

I'm still a little confused. 168 tons is a waste mass and with the corresponding density described in the 

petition, gives an actual waste volume of 

(168 tons) / (0.69 tons per cubic yard) = 249 cubic yards annually. Yet your final statement insists the 

volume is 168. I need to know the volume expressed in units of cubic yards per year, and knowing that 

the density is 0.69 tons/yard and not 1 ton per cubic yard, the tons and cubic yards must be different 

numbers. Please let me know the requested delisting volume in cubic yards . I'm working out of my home 

tomorrow from 07:30 to 5:00. You can reach me there at (847) 546-2517 or on my cell at (847) 293-5888. 

I can also get my e-mail while at home so feel free to respond via e-mail. 

Thanks, 

Todd D. Ramaly 

Environmental Scientist 

RCRA Programs Section 

U.S. EPA - Region 5 

(312) 353-9317
No. 10-5783.

#### Felipe Hernandez-Anguiano, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

562 U.S. 824, 131 S. Ct. 386,

178 L. Ed. 2d 21,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6710.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 25, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
LLOYD BELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

A.F. BEELER, 

Defendant. 

FILED 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 2 9 2009 

THE OF 'OLUMBIA NANCY M~~ER W~TT~N~TON, CLERK 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

1 Civil Action No. 

09 185'7 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and 

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted, but the complaint will 

be dismissed. 

Plaintiff alleges that the defendant, the Warden of the Federal Medial Center in Butner, 

North Carolina, has engaged in a criminal conspiracy. According to plaintiff, defendant "knows 

the vegetables have a crack line H.C.I. [Head Cavity Insensitive] poison drug in them," Compl. at 

3 (brackets in original), yet defendant allows such food to be served at the facility, see id. at 2-3. 

Plaintiff alleges that he has consumed such contaminated food and that his "nose was spread 

wider than usual," that his "eyelids were swollen," and that he "noticed crack lines in [his] face 

and eyelids as a result of the dineing [sic] room food." Id. at 2. He demands "restitutional 

punishment money for the crimes exposed in this complaint" of $1 million. Id. 

The court must dismiss a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. §§ 

191 5(e)(2)(B)(i), 191 5A(b)(l). In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 3 19 (1989), the Supreme Court 

states that the trial court has the authority to dismiss not only claims based on an indisputably 

meritless legal theory, but also claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless. Claims 
describing fantastic or delusional scenarios fall into the category of cases whose factual 

contentions are clearly baseless. Id. at 328. The trial court has the discretion to decide whether a 

complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational or 

wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,33 (1992). 

The court is mindful that complaints filed bypro se litigants are held to less stringent 

standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Having reviewed plaintiffs complaint, it appears that its factual 

contentions are baseless and wholly incredible. For this reason, the complaint is frivolous and 

must be dismissed. 

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. 

gic, 3 H~ic 

nited States District Judge
160 A.3d 712

#### S.O., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. K.K., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.
#### Housing Opportunity Partners Reo, LLC v. Mehalshick; Mehalshick, In re4

09/30/2015

465, 466 MAL (2015)

4

. Reconsideration Denied December 25, 2015.

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1052; 120 A.3d 1053
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Harris, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 437]

Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Loyola, J.), rendered August 24, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts).

In satisfaction of a 15-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal contempt in the second degree as a result of violating the terms of an order of protection and waived his right to appeal. Defendant was sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to consecutive one-year jail terms. He appeals.

We agree with defendant that the waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. A review of the colloquy reflects that County Court did not “meet its obligation to ensure that defendant understood that his appeal waiver encompassed a right ‘separate and distinct from those . . . automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty’ ” *(People v Burgette,*118 AD3d 1034, 1035 [2014], *lv denied*24 NY3d 1118 [2015], quoting *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). The only inquiry by the court with respect to the waiver of the right to appeal was whether defendant executed the written waiver knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently.* Moreover, the court did not inquire as to “ ‘the circumstances surrounding the document’s execution’ or confirm that defendant had been fully advised by counsel of the document’s significance” *(People v Chappelle,*121 AD3d 1166, 1167 [2014], *Iv denied*24 NY3d 1118 [2015], quoting *People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]). As such, the invalid appeal waiver does not preclude defendant’s challenge to *1338the sentence as harsh and excessive. Nevertheless, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the agreed-upon sentence *(see People v Saxton,*75 AD3d 755, 760 [2010], *Iv denied*15 NY3d 924 [2010]).

McCarthy, Egan Jr., Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*

 It is unclear from the record whether the appeal waiver was executed before or during the plea colloquy.
No. 09-9994.

#### John W. Germaine, Petitioner v. Marika Nyman St. Germaine.

562 U.S. 843, 131 S. Ct. 78,

178 L. Ed. 2d 50,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6036.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1846
ELLEN PRITCHARD, formerly known as Ellen Evans, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-395-3-17) Submitted: December 15, 2000 Decided: February 7, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles L. Griffin, III, Kristi F. Curtis, BRYAN, BAHNMULLER, GOLDMAN & MCELVEEN, L.L.P., Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.R. Murphy, J.J. Gentry, MURPHY & GRANTLAND, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ellen Pritchard, formerly Ellen Evans, appeals the district court’s orders granting summary judgment to the Defendant anddenying her motion for reconsideration on her claims of false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The cause of action was removed to district court based on diversity of citizenship. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion de novo. See Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Finding no reversible error, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Pritchard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , No. CA-99-395-3-17 (D.S.C. May 26, 2000). We review the denial of the motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. United States v. Holland , 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000); Collison v. International Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 1994). When the motion raises no new arguments, but merely requests the district court to reconsider a legal issue or to “change its mind,” relief is not authorized. United States v. Williams , 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982). We have reviewed the record as to the motion for reconsideration and we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-3 ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15180]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 982]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 168; Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas, 
Area

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, an application from the Dallas/Fort Worth Maquila Trade 
Development Corporation, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone No. 168, for 
authority to expand its general-purpose zone to include two sites in 
Gainesville (Cooke County), Texas, adjacent to the Dallas/Fort Worth 
Customs port of entry, was filed by the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board 
on June 27, 1997 (Docket 56-97, 62 FR 36487, 7/8/97);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board has found that the requirements of the Act and 
the regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public 
interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The grantee is authorized to expand its zone as requested in the 
application, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of May 1998.
Richard Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 98-15180 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Com. v. Inman 26

03/08/2016

729 MAL (2015)

26

. Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 68
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1
List of Subsidiaries

Arab American Express Company Ltd., a Jordanian company, 100% owned.

Secretarial and Business Services Co. (Aramex) L.L.C., organized under laws of
Dubai, 100% owned.

Arabian Express Courier, a subsidiary of Al Khalidia International Group of
Companies, organized under the laws of Abu Dhabi, 100% owned.

Almana Trading Company, organized under the laws of Qatar, 100% owned.

Yusuf Bin Ahmed Kanoo W.L.L., organized under the laws of Bahrain, 100% owned.

Al-Awsat International Transport Company, Ltd., a Saudi Arabian company, 50%
partnership interest.

Aramex International Courier France, a French company, 100% owned.

Aramex (U.K.) International Courier, Ltd., organized under the laws of the
United Kingdom, 100% owned.

Aramex International Courier of VA., Inc., organized under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, 100% owned.

Aramex International Courier, Ltd., organized under the laws of New York, 100%
owned.

Global Venture Group for Trading, organized under the laws of Kuwait, 100%
owned.

Aramex (Hellas) International S.A., a Greek company, 100% owned.

Aramex International Limited, Israel, organized under the laws of Israel, 100%
owned.

Ramallah Modern International Express Transport Co., organized under the laws of
the Palestinian Authority, 51% partnership interest.

Aramex International Limited, a Hong Kong company, 100% owned.

Middle East Direct Marketing Services Holding Limited, organized under the laws
of the Isle of Jersey, 80% equity ownership interest.

Fallouh for Trade and Express Shipping, organized under the laws of Syria, 60%
partnership interest.

Aramex International Courier Inc.-Canada, organized under the laws of Canada,
19.5% partnership interest.

Aramex SARL, organized under the laws of Lebanon, 50% partnership interest.

Arab American Express Company, organized under the laws of Lebanon, 50%
partnership interest.

Aramex International Ltd./Ariha organized under the laws of the Palestinian
Authority, 100% owned.

Arab American Clearance & Transport Company, a Jordanian company, 90%
partnership interest.

Aramax International Egypt, organized under the laws of Egypt, 100% owned.

Aramex Int'l Hava Kargo Ve Kurye A.S., organized under the laws of Turkey, 50%
partrnership interest.



<PAGE>



Intercontinental Express Ltd., organized under the laws of Bangladesh, 50%
partnership interest.

Aramex Couriers India Private Ltd., organized under the laws of India, 50%
partnership interest.

Aramex-Airborne Freight Corporation Lanka (Pvt) Ltd., organized under the laws
of Sri Lanka, 50% partnership interest.

Aramex-Airborne Lanka Private Ltd., organized under the laws of Sri Lanka, 50%
partnership interest.

Aramex Cyprus Ltd., organized under the laws of Cyprus, 100% owned.

Safricour Company, organized under the laws of Morocco, 70% partnership interest
# An Introduction to DLA Disposition Services Strategic Plan

/ Published Dec. 7, 2021
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Early into 2021, Defense Logistics Agency released a significant update to the Agency’s Strategic Plan. In turn, DLA Disposition Services reviewed and realigned its own strategy to reflect the broader goals of the Agency. 

This current reiteration of the Strategic Plan was refreshed along five main lines of effort.  Additionally, three critical capabilities were identified that are fundamental to achieving success for these five lines of effort.  

----

----

Click the image to learn more about DLA’s Strategic Plan. 

Each line of effort has objectives and subcategories that help refine DLA’s goals and provides a system of measurement for monitoring success and improvement. Additionally, key performance indicators measure critical customer, supplier, business health and employee metrics.

Dean Newsome, a strategic analyst for DLA Disposition Services offers some insight, “DLA develops a strategic plan 3-5 years out, and when a new Director arrives, the plan is reviewed; and refreshments and adjustments are made to the existing plan.” 

DLA Disposition Services Strategic Plan fiscal years 22-26 consists of 15 distinct initiatives that are designed to improve the organization’s entire spectrum of operation. Each of these fifteen initiatives are aligned to either a DLA line of effort or with one of the three critical capabilities outlined in the broader DLA Strategy.  

The initiatives implemented in the DLA Disposition Services Plan cover the entire gamut of reverse logistics - from updating customer and employee training, to better utilization of existing workforce assets, to improving disposal efficiencies. 

Once the DLA Disposition Services Plan was launched, the first six month to a year is a critical time for the initiatives. 

“Each of the processes begin with an analysis of where we are now and establishing the path forward,” Newsome said.  “We have to identify gaps, how to close those gaps, and what the best way is to close those gaps. 

“Environments change, situations change, and we need to be able to adjust accordingly.”
Abatement Order filed September 16 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00313

- CR

____________ NORMAN ANDREW PUCKETT , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris Co unty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1374245



### ABATEMENT ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due June 9, 2014

. See Tex. R. App. P.
35.1. The official court reporter, Kathleen O’Connor Powers, filed eight volumes of the record on May 27, 2014. On Jun e 12, 2014 , this court gra nted an extension
of time to the substitute reporter, Patricia Palmer
, to file the remaining volume of
the record by July 9, 2014. On July 8, 2014, we granted a second extension of time to file the remaining volume until August 8, 2014, noting that no further extensionswould be granted absent exceptional circumstances. On August 18, 2014, the

reporter filed a third request for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. This court issued an order denying the motion and ord ering Patricia Palmer to file
the record within twenty days , and the court advised the court reporter that if the
record was not filed, the court would direct the trial court to conduct a hearing to
determine the reason f

or failure to file the record.

The remaining record has not been filed with the court. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely as ord ered, we issue the following order. We direct the judge of the 180th District Court to conduct a hearing at
which the substitute court reporter, Patricia Palmer, appellant’s counsel, and appellee’s counsel shall participate to (a) determine the reason for failure to file the record; (b) establish a date certain when the reporter’s record will be filed, and (c) make findings as to whether the court reporter should be held in contempt of court for failing to file the repor ter’s record timely as ordered. We or der the court to prepare a record, in the form of a repo rter’s record, of the hearing. The judge shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to forward to this court a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findi ngs and
conclusions. The hearing record and supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with
the clerk of this court within 30 days of the date of this order.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s
active docket. Th e appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reins tate the appeal on its own motion. If the court reporter filesthe record prior to the date set for the hearing, the appeal will be reinstated

and the trial court need not hold a hearing.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Chr istopher and Busby.
<PAGE>   1
21.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

CBS Complete Business Solutions (Mauritius) Limited              Mauritius
CBSI Financial Services Corporation                              Michigan
CBSI Europe, N.V.                                                Belgium
CBSI Luxembourg S.A.                                             Luxembourg
Complete Business Solutions (India) Limited                      India
BPR Management S.A.                                              Belgium
CBSI Belgium                                                     Belgium
BPR Belgium                                                      Belgium
CBSI Philippines, Inc.                                           Philippines
CBSI Canada, Inc.                                                Canada
Complete Business Solutions Australia Pty Limited                Australia
E-Business Solutions.com, Inc.                                   Delaware
Complete Business Solutions (Singapore) Pte Ltd                  Singapore
CBSI Germany                                                     Germany
CBSI France                                                      France
No. 09-1464.

#### Suzanne Venezia, Petitioner v. William Penn School District.

562 U.S. 835, 131 S. Ct. 144,

178 L. Ed. 2d 36,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5906,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.