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
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,106
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,879
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,616
<INVENTORY>                                      2,911
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,316
<PP&E>                                         743,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                 373,314
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 446,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,703
<BONDS>                                        101,171
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       118,442
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   446,807
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               281,554
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  209,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 63,531
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,878
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             37,653
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                           88
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,741
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 09-10711.

#### Matthew M. Cobado, Petitioner v. James Conway, Superintendent, Attica Correctional Facility.

562 U.S. 850, 131 S. Ct. 100,

178 L. Ed. 2d 63,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6126.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
No. 10-6063.

#### Johnny I. Prather, Petitioner v. William F. Lee, Jr., Chief Judge, Superior Court of Georgia, Coweta County.

562 U.S. 1008, 131 S. Ct. 514,

178 L. Ed. 2d 380,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8556,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
### JUDGMENT 

## Court of Appeals First District of Texas

NO. 01

- 14

- 00237

- CV
OLIVER VANS, JR., MI CKEY DINH, SANTOS RE YNA, AND LO DINH , Appellant s

V.

INFINITY COUNTY MUTU AL INSURANCE COMPANY AND SANDRA HIGHTOWER , Appellee s Appeal from the 281st District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2009

- 68816 ).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on May 1,
2013. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellants, Oliver Vans, Jr., Mickey Dinh, Santos Reyna, and Lo Dinh, jointly and severally, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered May 5, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Ju stice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd. Opinion delivered by Justice Lloyd.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kyle McBride, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 297]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa C. Jackson, J.), rendered May 1, 2015, as amended June 9, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree, aggravated family offense, and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the sentence for the aggravated family offense conviction and remanding to Supreme Court for resentencing on that conviction, and otherwise affirmed.

*624Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Bryant,*28 NY3d 1094 [2016]), which forecloses review of his claim that the court improperly denied his request for new counsel *(see People v Doyle,*82 AD3d 564 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 805 [2011]).

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we find that the court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s application for reassignment of counsel. At the plea proceeding, defendant failed to make specific factual allegations of genuinely serious complaints that would trigger the court’s obligation to inquire further *(see People v Porto,*16 NY3d 93, 100-101 [2010]). Furthermore, the court made reference to recent prior inquiries into defendant’s complaints about the same attorney, and it declined to revisit the issue.

The parties agree that defendant should be resentenced on his aggravated family offense conviction because he was absent when, in order to correct an illegality, the court changed the minimum term from 1 year to IV2 years.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 33922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16484]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GT98-38-001]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

June 16, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 12, 1998, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised 
tariff sheets to become effective April 30, 1998:

Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 5
Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 6
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 6A
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 7
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 8
Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 9
Second Revised Sheet No. 10

    Williston Basin states that the revised tariff sheets are being 
filed to show the legend, names of areas, fields, receipt and delivery 
points and other points of reference reflected on Williston Basin's 
system maps in a legible format, in accordance with the Commission's 
May 28, 1998, Letter Order.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16484 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**Exhibit 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION906****OF THE****SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q,(the “Report”), of Triton PCS, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof, I, David D. Clark, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as appropriate, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and

(2)

the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|   |   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|
|   |   |        |   | By:  | /s/ DAVID D. CLARK |
|   |   |   |   |   |  |
|   |   |   |   | Name:  | **David D. Clark** |
|   |   |   |   | Title:  | **Chief Financial Officer** |
|   |   |   |   | Date:  | **May 15, 2003** |
Docket Number: FAA-2012-1222
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 1466

BENJAMIN VIENT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
GANNETT CO. INC. , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv - 01562

- LMB

- MSN )

Submitted : February 25, 2022 Decided: April 1, 2022

Before KING and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Benjamin Vient, Appellant Pro Se. Laurin Howard Mills, SAMEK, WERTHER & MILLS, LLC, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding prece dent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : Benjamin Vient appeals the district court ’ s April 22, 2021, order denying two
motions that he filed on March 22, 2021, in his closed civil action . The district court denied Vient’s motions based on its prior order prohib iting Vient from filing anything other than a notice of appeal in the district court. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues
raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b)

. Because Vient’s informal brief does not challenge the district cour t’s rationale for denying his motions , he has forfeited appellate
review of the district court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our
review is lim ited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly , we affirm the district court’s April 22, 2021, order. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* Even if Vient had not forfeited appellate review of the district court’s April 22, 2021, order, we would affirm on the alternative ground that Vient’s two motions lacked merit. See United States v. Riley , 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir. 2017) (recognizing th at “we may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record” (internal quotation marks omitted) ).
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption
"Experts-Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm" and to the use of our
report dated December 2, 2004 in the Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement (File No. 333-120551) and related Prospectus of Claymore Securities
Defined Portfolios, Series 204.



                                             /s/ Grant Thornton LLP
                                             -------------------------
                                             GRANT THORNTON LLP


Chicago, Illinois
December 2, 2004
# DSCR takes part in statewide tornado exercise 

/ Published March 28, 2016
RICHMOND, Virginia, 
The peace and serenity of a warm, clear sunny March day on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia, was shattered, in an instant, when a tornado warning blared over the installation’s Giant Voice speaker system.

Defense Logistics Agency Installation Support at Richmond’s Police, Fire and Emergency Services immediately sprang into action. Shuttle buses were dispatched to evacuate employees from the Southern Administrative Complex trailers to the Center Restaurant. Employees in other buildings across the compound took appropriate actions to make it to a safe place as designated in the DSCR Employee Emergency Action Guide. 

Roughly 30 minutes after the initial warning, it was all over. “It’s difficult to show them that it’s going to be bad weather, that it’s going to be pouring down raining, that it’s going to be high winds,”  said Donald Rogers, fire chief, DLA Installation Support at Richmond.

The warning over the speaker system and evacuation of employees were all part of a simulated tornado warning that played out at DSCR the morning of March 22 as part of the Virginia Department of Emergency Management and the National Weather Service annual Statewide Tornado exercise. Participants included DLA Aviation, DSCR tenant activities and DLA Installation Support at Richmond. DSCR personnel participated in this exercise by initiating installation emergency plans and procedures.

We have seen the death and destruction caused by tornadoes right here in Virginia. Back in February a twister struck, killing three in Waverly, another in Appomattox County, and injuring multiple people in Tappahannock.

According to the National Weather Service, tornadoes may be the most dangerous element of severe weather during the spring and summer months. 

“If you’re not prepared and you don’t practice, when the real thing happens, you won’t be ready then either,” said Rogers.

He said the goals of the tornado drill are to:

•           Evaluate employee preparedness and response,

•           Evaluate mass warning procedures,

•           Validate response resources, and

•           Ensure accountability.

“The employees are looking to the supervisors and asking “what am I supposed to do, where am I supposed to go,” said Rogers. “If the supervisors don’t know and the fire warden and the safety monitor don’t know, then we have a problem.” 

While there are things Rogers said he saw during the drill that could use some fine tuning, which will be addressed during the After Action Review, overall he was happy with the way the drill executed. 

“We do see some areas that could use improvement, like we always do,” he said.  “That’s a great thing.  Now we can go back and come up with our plan of action.”
No. 10-5949.

#### John Steven Spisak, Petitioner v. Nevada.

562 U.S. 984, 131 S. Ct. 420,

178 L. Ed. 2d 327,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8321,

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.

Same case below, 126 Nev. 758.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Davaj Frazier, Appellant.

[59 NYS3d 408]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered March 30, 2015, convicting him of criminal possession of weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate *792review *(see People v Kolupa,*13 NY3d 786, 787 [2009]; *People v Hawkins,*11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; *People v Finger,*95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]; *cf. People v Squires,*68 AD3d 900, 900 [2009]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our independent factual review power pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of evidence *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]; *People v Hawkins,*258 AD2d 472 [1999]). Retaining a gun beyond opportunities to safely relinquish it is “ ‘utterly at odds’ ” with any claim of innocent possession *(People v Snyder,*73 NY2d 900, 902 [1989], quoting *People v Williams,*50 NY2d 1043, 1045 [1980]; *see People v Hawkins,*258 AD2d at 472). Although the defendant claimed that he picked up somebody else’s gun after he had just been shot in the arm, he ran away from the police when ordered to stop and to show his hands. He also resisted apprehension, and never informed the officers about the gun he had in his possession despite ample opportunity to do so. Thus, there was no reasonable view of the evidence upon which the jury could have found that the defendant’s possession of the weapon was innocent *(see People v Snyder,*73 NY2d 900 [1989]; *People v Hawkins,*258 AD2d 472 [1999]).

The defendant’s contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit *(see People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Chambers, J.P., Austin, Roman and Bar-ros, JJ., concur.
# Disposition Services adds autonomous floor cleaner to inventory 

/ Published May 19, 2023
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Research and Development Branch focuses on ways to develop and deliver new capabilities through applied technologies and innovative solutions to enhance agency capabilities.

                Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Richmond Area Manager Raymond Johnson demonstrates the new autonomous floor cleaner.                            DLA Disposition Services autonomous floor cleaner                            Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Richmond Area Manager Raymond Johnson demonstrates the new autonomous floor cleaner.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: Eric MillsVIRIN: 230420-D-D0441-101DLA Disposition Services is collaborating with DLA R&D, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to test an autonomous floor scrubber in a warehouse setting.

“After attending an automate conference and witnessing the strides in warehouse automation post pandemic with the gains of automation and robotics, I saw an opportunity to reassess the tasks we do in our warehouses which are dull-dirty or dangerous,” said DLA Disposition Services Process Engineering Improvements Office Don Helle. “DLA Disposition Services is at a pivot point in warehouse modernization.  We have two of the very best robot engineers from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a dedicated representative from DLA-HQ R&D Dr. Imes Chiu, me and the complete support from our executive leadership to optimize our warehouse production with a safer and cleaner work environment.”

The robotic floor cleaner nicknamed “Rosie the Robot,” uses water to scrub the floors and eliminates the need for floor cleaning solutions.  Additionally, the machine will maneuver around obstacles, decreasing the amount of human intervention, and allowing employees to shift focus on mission functions.

“The testing period has been great,” DLA Disposition Services Richmond Area Manager Raymond Johnson said.  “We are seeing the BrainOS technology maneuver the scrubber with the agility to avoid obstacles by inches.  The machine has stopped to avoid impact and reset itself to find alternate routes to continue to move forward with its cleaning assignment.  My team and myself challenge the scrubber every day to drive in difficulty patterns thru an ever-changing warehouse floor.”

The new endeavor is funded by USACE while DLA Disposition Services is providing the environmental testing space and workforce necessary for evaluation.  After the testing period, USACE Engineer Research and Development Center will assess the data and provide a recommendation to DLA Disposition Services Director, based on the organization’s needs.

“If this test at DLA Disposition Services Richmond site turns out favorable, there is a stretch goal of replacing our manual floor sweepers with autonomous floor scrubbers throughout our inventory,” Helle said.
No. 09-10417.

#### Jimmy J. Wade, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 981, 131 S. Ct. 412,

178 L. Ed. 2d 321,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8273.

October 18, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# DLA Energy observes Military Appreciation Month

/ Published May 20, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia,       -     May 1, Loyalty Day, a day designated in 1921 for citizens to reaffirm their loyalty to the U.S. and its heritage; 
      -     May 3-9, Public Service Recognition Week to honor individuals who serve as federal, state, country and local government employees; 
      -     May 8, Victory in Europe Day commemorating the unconditional surrender of Germany in World War II on May 8th, 1945; 
      -     May 8, Military Spouse Appreciation Day is celebrated the Friday before Mother’s Day and recognizes the sacrifice and support of military spouses. The holiday began in 1984 under President Ronald Reagan; 
      -     May 16, Armed Forces Day honors Americans serving in the military;
      -     May 25, the widely-recognized Memorial Day, a federal holiday, began after the Civil War to remember the soldiers on both sides who fell during the war. Later it grew to commemorate all Americans who died serving in the military.