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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,176,479
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,369,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,000
<INVENTORY>                                    534,181
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,352,812
<PP&E>                                       4,948,592
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,106,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,325,280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,126,310
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,325,280
<SALES>                                     10,408,958
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,408,958
<CGS>                                        7,727,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  934,502
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             204,283
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,543,090
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (617,230)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            925,860
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   925,860
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .69


</TABLE>
No. 10-132.

#### Willie L. Glenn, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lester Zachary, et al., Petitioners v. City of Columbus, Georgia, et al.

562 U.S. 895, 131 S. Ct. 319,

178 L. Ed. 2d 144,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6307.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 375 Fed. Appx. 928.
#### In the Matter of Kaseem Williams, Petitioner, v Supreme Court, Bronx County, et al., Respondents. District Attorney, New York County, Nonparty Respondent.

[63 NYS3d 243]—

The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon, it is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Andrias, Gische, Kern and Singh, JJ.
RE: Final Toxics Rule Materials - Ready for OMB Clearance 

 Higgins, Cortney 

 to: RobertJ Wayland 

 03/16/2011 10:15 AM 

 Cc: Bill Maxwell, Kevin Culligan, Peter Tsirigotis, Teresa Clemons 

Chapter 9-

11apxEeconomicimpactstoxicsruleRIA3-16OMBclean.docx 

Chapter5-

8mercuryHAPbenefitstoxicsruleRIA3-16OMBreviewclean.docx 

Hi Bob, 

These two documents still contain tracked changes. Please scrub and send 

back to me. I've forwarded the other documents to OP for upload. 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov 

[mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 10:03 AM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Maxwell.Bill@epamail.epa.gov; Culligan.Kevin@epamail.epa.gov; 

tsirigotis.peter@epa.gov; Clemons.Teresa@epamail.epa.gov 

Subject: Final Toxics Rule Materials - Ready for OMB Clearance 

Importance: High 

Cortney - 

Attached below are three (3) items: (1) Final preamble/reg text for 

the Toxics Rule; (2) Final RIA (in files </= 8.5 MB as requested) and, 

(3) the RIA ROCIS Table. Please let me know if there are any concerns 

with regard to clearing the materials asap. 

thanx! 

bob 

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. 

Leader, Energy Strategies Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Sector Policies and Programs 

Division Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711 

Phone: (919) 541-1045 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

e-mail: wayland.robertj@epa.gov 

********************************************************* 
DRAFT/Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

********************************************************* 

Final Rule: 

(See attached file: TheToxicsRule Proposal 031611a.doc) 

(See attached file: Redline 031611 vs. 031611a.doc) Final RIA: 

(See attached file: Chapters1-4ToxicsRuleRIA3-16clean.docx) 

(See attached file: 

Chapter5-8mercuryHAPbenefitstoxicsruleRIA3-16OMBreviewclean.docx) 

(See attached file: Chapter 

9-11apxEeconomicimpactstoxicsruleRIA3-16OMBclean.docx) 

Final ROCIS RIA Table: 

(See attached file: ROCISproposedtoxicsrule3-14.xlsx)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000068619
<NAME> MOUNTAIN STATES RESOURCES CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          966,999
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     78,946
<COMMON>                                     4,843,348
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,889,293)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   67,699
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (67,699)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (67,699)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
#### Miguel Santana et al., Respondents, v Curtis Johnson, Jr., et al., Appellants.

[60 NYS3d 831]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Laura G. Douglas, J.), entered August 10, 2016, which granted defendants’ motion to preclude plaintiffs from offering at trial the testimony of nonparties IME Watchdog, Inc., Jamal Aaron and Shawn Jer-rick, only in the event that those witnesses failed to appear for a deposition within 60 days, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in granting defendants’ preclusion motion only in the event that the nonparty witnesses failed to appear for depositions concerning their observations at physical examinations of plaintiffs *(see*CPLR 3126). Plaintiffs are entitled to have a representative present at their physical examinations as long as the representative does not interfere with the examinations conducted by defendants’ designated physician or prevent defendants’ physician from conducting a meaningful examination *(see Guerra v McBean,*127 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2015]; *Henderson v Ross,*147 AD3d 915 [2d Dept 2017]; *Marriott v Cappello,*151 AD3d 1580 [4th Dept 2017]). In the present case, there is no contention that the observers interfered with the examinations and the physicians issued thorough reports without indicating that any further examinations were required.

To the extent that this Court has implicitly suggested that a representative can be barred from an examination if the plaintiff fails to demonstrate special and unusual circumstances *(see Kattaria v Rosado,*146 AD3d 457 [1st Dept 2017]), that is not the current state of the law in either the First, Second or Fourth Departments and is inconsistent with the general principle that plaintiffs are entitled to have a representative present at their medical examinations *(Guerra*at 462; *Henderson*at 916; *Marriott*at 1582).

To the extent defendants sought a pretrial order precluding testimony of the observers as cumulative of plaintiffs’ anticipated testimony, the order denying that request is not appeal-able *(see Casler Masonry, Inc. v Barr & Barr, Inc.,*118 AD3d 609, 610 [1st Dept 2014]; *Santos v Nicolas,*65 AD3d 941 [1st *453Dept 2009]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Kapnick, Kern and Moulton, JJ.
# Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 13

- 01033

- CV

Gonzalo Sosa

v
.

Julio Garcia

NO. 1036389 IN THE CO CIVIL CT AT LAW N O 1 OF HARRIS C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE
MT FEE
CLK RECORD
STATEWIDE EFILI NG
FILING $15.00 $10.00 $53.00 $20.00 $175.00 05/20/2014
01/23/2014
12/26/2013
12/23/2013
12/23/2013 E

- PAID
E

- PAID

PAID
PAID
PAID ANT
ANT
ANT
ANT
ANT 

### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $273.00.

Court costs in t his case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness m y hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this April 2 4 , 2015

.
#### In the Matter of Jennifer J.H., Appellant, v Artrieo J.R., Respondent.

[48 NYS3d 748]

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Denise M. Watson, J.), entered January 8, 2016. The order, without a hearing, dismissed the mother’s petition to modify a prior order of that court so as to award her unsupervised visitation with the subject child.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Dutchess County, for a hearing to determine the best interests of the child and for a new determination on the mother’s petition to modify the prior visitation order.

The petitioner is the biological mother of the subject child, who was born in 2005, and the respondent is the stepfather of the child, who was appointed the child’s legal guardian in 2010. The mother left the child with the stepfather and was out of their lives for several years. In 2013, the mother petitioned to have visitation with the child in a therapeutic setting and the Family Court, on consent of the parties, directed therapeutic visitation in an order dated November 7, 2013. Several visits occurred, and then stopped during the summer of 2015. The mother then filed a new petition alleging that visitation had ceased and seeking to modify the prior order so as to award her unsupervised visitation with the child. Without holding a hearing, the court dismissed the petition, relying on the recommendation of the child’s therapist, who indicated that there should be no visitation between the mother and the child at that time. The mother appeals. We reverse.

A hearing was necessary to determine whether the totality of the circumstances warranted a modification of the visitation order and whether such a change is in the best interests of the child (see *Matter of Athena H.M. v Samuel M.,*143 AD3d 561 [2016]; *see also S.L. v J.R.,*27 NY3d 558, 564 [2016]). The *810child’s wishes, to be discerned from an interview, should be considered in making the determination (see *Matter of Athena H.M. v Samuel M.,*143 AD3d 561 [2016]).

Moreover, it was improper for the Family Court to rely exclusively on the therapist’s recommendation in making the visitation determination (see *Matter of Grisanti v Grisanti,*4 AD3d 471, 474 [2004]; *Johnson v Johnson,*303 AD2d 641 [2003]).

Hall, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Connolly, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1608

THEODORE W. ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HERBERT E. MAXEY, JR.; MICHELLE D. ROBINSON; RICHARD S. BLANTON, in his individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-98-90-3) Submitted: July 22, 1999 Decided: July 28, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore W. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. Collin Jefferson Hite, Frank B. Miller, III, SANDS, ANDERSON, MARKS & MILLER, Richmond, Virginia; Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, Gregory E. Lucyk, Edward Meade Macon, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Theodore W. Robinson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson v. Maxey , No. CA-98-90-3 (W.D. Va. Mar. 30, 1999). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 10-5029.

#### Charles Christopher Williams, Petitioner v. South Carolina.

562 U.S. 899, 131 S. Ct. 230,

178 L. Ed. 2d 153,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6339.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.

Same case below, 386 S.C. 503, 690 S.E.2d 62.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK, FSB, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

AND

STEPHEN ROSENBAUM, FRANK E. WILLIAMS, JR., COMPASS POINT P ARTNERS LLC , AND LEGAL ALPHA LLC, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated holders of Litigation Tracking Warrants of Dime Bancorp , Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES, De fendant

- Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 5005

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 95

- CV

- 0039, Judge Lawrence J. Block.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________E DWIN L. F OUNTAIN , Jones Day, Washington, DC, a rgued for plaintiff

- appellee. With him on the brief were G REGORY A. C ASTANIAS and A NTHONY J. D ICK

.

P AUL A. T RAINA , Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, of Los Angeles, California, argued for plaintiffs

- appellants. Of counsel was J ARED W ESLEY B EIKE

.

J OHN J. T ODOR , Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Li tigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant

appellee. With him on the brief were J OYCE R. B RANDA , Deputy Assistant A ttorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Director, and S COTT D. A USTIN , Assistant Director.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST , B RYSON , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. S ee Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

October 16, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk
# Jack Dietrich named DLA Emergency Communication Center Operator of the Year

/ Published April 14, 2021
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week is April 11-17, 2021. It was started in 1981 to recognize these first responders who remain available every hour of every day.

In honor of this week, Defense Logistics Agency Installation Management Susquehanna recognizes Jack Dietrich, emergency services lead dispatcher, for being awarded DLA Emergency Communication Center Operator of the Year. Deitrich, also the 2020 ECC professional of the year; two-time 2020 ECC employee of the quarter; and 2020 Security Management Branch Employee of the Quarter, led multiple initiatives regarding training, department cooperation and COVID-19 pandemic response.

“Access to the installation is the most common call we receive,” said Deitrich. Over the past year, access to the installation has faced changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Deitrich led an effort to incorporate COVID-19 screening questions as part of the initial conversation between someone requesting access to the installation and the dispatchers.

If there was one thing Deitrich wished everyone else knew it would be “the volume of calls received each day,” he said.

Between the hours 6 a.m. - 6 p.m., every day, there are almost 100 calls for installation access. On top of that are emergency calls which take precedence. While this balance of priority is critical to the dispatcher role, it remains near invisible to the caller.

“Dispatchers require multiple certifications ranging from federal, to state, to even DLA requirements,” said Kimberly Hartman, emergency services dispatch supervisor. All of these certifications assist the dispatcher in the initial moments when a call comes in.

Not only do these questions help determine what services to send out, but also provide information to the fire, police, or emergency medical services that arrive on site.

One of Deitrich’s current training projects includes training installation warehouse employees on the use of the orange emergency button on their radios. “Pressing that button gives the user clear use of the radio waves for 20 seconds,” said Deitrich. Teaching employees about every available tool at their disposal can save essential seconds in a critical situation.

Under leadership and initiative from Deitrich, the installation emergency communication center has created policies and procedures that allow the department to grow and develop in ways that are most efficient and beneficial to them.

“It allows us to identify our own deficiencies and correct them independently,” said Hartman.
# 7SS-/5* ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA# 02-13-00609-CR OFFENSE: Matthew Lee Barnettv. The State 

## STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Hood COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 355th District Court 

### DATE: 06/18/15 Publish: YES TC CASE #: CR12446



## IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Matthew Lee Barnettv. The State of STYLE: Texas 

# CCA# %%%mlS AfPELLANT^S Petition CCA Disposition: FORDISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCAIS: DATE: JUDGE: 

# DATE: Oct, 2tf ZIOJ^ J1 

## JUDGE: PC* SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### ELECTRONIC RECORD
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1777 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1777

 To extend the suspended implementation of certain requirements of the 
     food stamp program on Indian reservations, to suspend certain 
eligibility requirements for the participation of retail food stores in 
            the food stamp program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 22, 1993

Mr. Pressler (for himself and Mr. Leahy) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend the suspended implementation of certain requirements of the 
     food stamp program on Indian reservations, to suspend certain 
eligibility requirements for the participation of retail food stores in 
            the food stamp program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. REPORTING AND STAGGERED ISSUANCE FOR HOUSEHOLDS ON 
              RESERVATIONS.

    Section 908(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade 
Act Amendments of 1991 (Public Law 102-237; 7 U.S.C. 2015 note and 7 
U.S.C. 2016 note) is amended by striking ``January 31, 1994'' both 
places it appears and inserting ``March 15, 1994''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY OF CERTAIN RETAIL FOOD STORES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during the period 
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on March 15, 
1994, an establishment or house-to-house trade route that is otherwise 
authorized to accept and redeem coupons under the Food Stamp Act of 
1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) on the date of enactment of this Act may 
not be disqualified from participation in the food stamp program solely 
because the establishment or trade route does not meet the definition 
of ``retail food store'' under section 3(k)(1) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 
2012(k)(1)).

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                                SUBSIDIARIES OF
              NORTH AMERICAN GAMING AND ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    PERCENTAGE      STATE OF INCORPORATION
               NAME                  OWNERSHIP         OR ORGANIZATION 
               ----                 -----------        ---------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                 <C>          <C>
Ozdon Investments, Inc.                100%               Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River Port Truck Stop, Inc.            100%               Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GalaxSea Cruises and Tours, Inc.       100%               Oklahoma 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.T. Cruise, Inc.                      100%               Oklahoma 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OM Operating, L.L.C.                  24.5%               Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
River Port Truck Stop, LLC              25%               Louisiana 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
No. 10-5032.

#### Tyrone Wells, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 899, 131 S. Ct. 230,

178 L. Ed. 2d 153,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6129.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 344 Fed. Appx. 839.