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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001040328
<NAME> CHAMPPS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                          10,223
<SECURITIES>                                     2,748
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                       223
<INVENTORY>                                      1,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,777
<PP&E>                                          48,220
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,124
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,142
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,953
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           116
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,142
<SALES>                                         87,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,950
<CGS>                                           78,412
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,412
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,079)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,079)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (9,843)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,923)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.06)


</TABLE>
Nilo HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. Tamara GARCIA, Appellee.

No. 3D18-456

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 27, 2019.

Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Annabel C. Majewski, for appellant.

Bofill Law Group, and Jose C. Bofill, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

***ON APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS***

We grant appellee's motion and dismiss this appeal as one taken from a nonfinal, nonappealable order. *See, e.g.*, *M.M. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families*, 189 So.3d 134, 137 (Fla. 2016) (observing that "[a]n appeal from a final order is appropriate when judicial labor has ended");

*464*S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb*, 304 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1974) (noting: "Generally, the test employed by the appellate court to determine finality of an order, judgment or decree is whether the order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the cause as between the parties directly affected.") This dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of a proper and timely appeal from a final, appealable order. Given this disposition, we do not reach the claims raised in the instant appeal, nor do we express any comment on their relative merit.

Appeal dismissed.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 181 

Honoring the life and legacy of Carl Lutz. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 28, 2021 

Mr. BLUNT (for himself and Mr. CASEY) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the life and legacy of Carl Lutz. 

Whereas Carl Lutz was born on March 30, 1895, in 

Walzenhausen, Switzerland, but moved to the United 

States as a young man; 

Whereas Carl Lutz became a diplomat, eventually serving at 

the Swiss consulate in what was then Mandatory Palestine; 

Whereas, in 1942, Carl Lutz was transferred to Budapest, 

Hungary, where he— 

(1) served as the Swiss vice consul until the end of 

World War II; and 

(2) represented countries that had severed diplomatic relations with Hungary because of its German alliance; 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 181 IS 

Whereas Carl Lutz, upon arrival in Budapest, began to work 

to help Jews receive Swiss diplomatic protection so they 

could flee Nazi persecution; 

Whereas, in 1944, Carl Lutz received permission to issue protective papers to save 8,000 Jews from deportation, 

which Lutz determined to mean 8,000 families, not 8,000 

individuals; 

Whereas Carl Lutz extended Swiss protection to 76 buildings 

that operated as safe houses for Jewish refugees seeking 

protection, including a department store called the Glass 

House, which served as a refuge for up to 3,000 Jews 

and as a headquarters for the Zionist underground; 

Whereas, in November 1944, Carl Lutz and his wife, Trudi 

Lutz, joined a death march to various concentration 

camps, pulling Jews out of the line to issue as many protective papers as possible; 

Whereas, at the end of World War II, Carl Lutz and his coconspirators, including his wife, his staff, and the Zionist 

underground members, saved over 50,000 Jews, which 

was half of the surviving Jewish population of Budapest; 

and 

Whereas the United States is deeply indebted to Carl Lutz, 

who was responsible for the largest civilian rescue mission of Jews during World War II: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) honors the life and legacy of Carl Lutz; 

3 (2) recognizes that the heroic effort of Carl 

4 Lutz went above and beyond the call of duty to save 

5 the Hungarian Jews ‘‘condemned to die’’ because he 

6 believed it to be a ‘‘matter of conscience’’; and 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 181 IS 

1 (3) expresses deep appreciation to Carl Lutz on 

2 behalf of the United States for facilitating the larg3 est civilian rescue mission of Jews during World 

4 War II, saving over 50,000 Jews through the protec5 tive papers and documentation he issued. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
IN RE: Forrest E. GUEDRY

NO. 2019-B-0558

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

PER CURIAM

Respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel submitted a joint petition for consent discipline, in which the parties stipulated that respondent has violated Rules 8.4(a) and 8.4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Forrest E. Guedry, Louisiana Bar Roll number 36482, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year and one day. This suspension shall be deferred in its entirety, subject to respondent's successful completion of a two-year period of unsupervised probation governed by the conditions set forth in the Petition for Consent Discipline. The probationary period shall commence from the date respondent and the ODC execute a formal probation plan. Any failure of respondent to comply with the conditions of probation, or any misconduct during the probationary period, may be grounds for making the deferred suspension executory, or imposing additional discipline, as appropriate.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court's judgment until paid.
**Exhibit      32**

**CERTIFICATIONS      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

| Dated: | May                10, 2007 |   |   |   | RIDGEWOOD                ENERGY M FUND, LLC                      |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                        |   |   |   |                                                             |
|   |                        | By:    | /s/    |   | ROBERT                E. SWANSON                                 |
|   |                        |   | Name:  |   | Robert                E. Swanson                                 |
|   |                        |   | Title: |   | President                and Chief Executive Officer             |
|   |                        |   |   |   | (Principal                Executive Officer)                     |
|   |                        |   |   |   |                                                             |
| Dated: | May                10, 2007 |   |   |   |                                                             |
|   |                        | By:    | /s/    |   | KATHLEEN                P. MCSHERRY                              |
|   |                        |   | Name:  |   | Kathleen                P. McSherry                              |
|   |                        |   | Title: |   | Senior                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                        |   |   |   | (Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer)      |
|   |                        |   |   |   |                                                             |
|   |                        |   |   |   |                                                             |
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-73035) pertaining to the 1996 Employee Stock Option Plan, 1997
Restaurant Management Stock Option Plan, 1998 Stock Option Plan and 1998
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-98665) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Option Plan and the 1999 Nonstatutory
Stock Option Plan, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-56618) of
P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. of our report dated January 30, 2004, except for
the matters disclosed in Note 1 as to which the date is March 12, 2004, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of P.F. Chang's China Bistro,
Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 28,
2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                                       /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Phoenix, Arizona
March 12, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1,000
<CASH>                                      42,796,320
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               52,956,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 34,191,727
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           149,124,101
<PP&E>                                     138,108,264
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,166,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             314,560,103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      143,265,510
<BONDS>                                     61,992,112
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       245,351
<OTHER-SE>                                  85,044,729
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               314,560,103
<SALES>                                    382,912,819
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           382,912,819
<CGS>                                      293,712,117
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              326,411,421
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               374,225
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,227,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             55,964,182
<INCOME-TAX>                                20,677,702
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         35,286,480
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                35,286,480
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43
        

</TABLE>
#### PARKCHESTER HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff, Counter Defendant, Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. GE LIFE AND ANNUITY ASSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Counter Claimant, Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

No. 03-20811.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 10, 2004.

Marc H. Schneider, Bryan Olyn Poole, Waldron & Schneider, Lloyd Earl Kelley, Lloyd E. Kelley & Associates, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff, Counter Defendant, Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

Mark Christopher Guthrie, Elliot Clark, Winstead, Sechrest & Minick, Houston, TX, for Defendant, Counter Claimant, Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Parkchester Holdings, Inc. executed a promisory note in favor of GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company for $1,675,000.00, with interest at eight percent per annum, payable monthly for 180 months. The note contained a prepayment penalty clause. Parkchester repaid its obligation prior to the maturity date of the note and, pursuant to the prepayment clause, paid GE Life $267,236.07. Parkchester then filed this action in Texas state court, claiming the prepayment was an unreasonable and unenforceable penalty. GE Life removed the action to federal court and counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that the prepayment was enforceable and for attorney’s fees pursuant to the note and corresponding deed of trust. Pursuant to GE Life’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, the district court dismissed Parkchester’s claim and entered final judgment, referencing the reasons stated in its order of dismissal; but, in so doing, it did not rule on GE Life’s claims.

Under Texas law, there is no merit to the contention that a prepayment of the type at issue must be reasonable; therefore, Parkchester’s claim was properly dismissed. *See, e.g.,*Tex. Fin.Code Ann. § 306.005 (Vernon 2002) (“A creditor and an obligor may agree to a prepayment penalty in a loan subject to this chapter.”); *Bearden v. Tarrant Sav. Ass’n,*643 S.W.2d 247, 249 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1982, writ *957refd n.r.e.) (holding, under Texas law, no requirement for prepayment penalty to be reasonable). Presumably through oversight, the district court did not address GE Life’s claims for declaratory judgment and attorney’s fees.

Accordingly, dismissal of Parkchester’s claim is AFFIRMED; the remainder of the judgment is VACATED; and this matter is REMANDED for consideration of GE Life’s claims. Parkchester’s motion to certify the reasonableness *vel non*issue to the Texas Supreme Court is DENIED.

*MOTION TO CERTIFY DENIED; AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART*

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit
      32





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





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of SFSB, Inc. (the
“Company”) each certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge, that the
      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007
      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.




/s/ Philip
              E.
              LoganPhilip
                E. Logan
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer
              May
                10,2007  /s/ Sophie
              T. WittelsbergerSophie
                T. Wittelsberger
              Vice-President
                and Chief Financial Officer
              May
                10,
                2007




This
      certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
      is
      not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document,
      and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any reason
      other
      than as specifically required by law.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS**



## Ron. JobGordon county Attorney Pospa,fens . Doar Sirr AUSTIN February 16, 1939 Opinion Pfo,O-348 Re: Xc acknow1eQ.e ary 30th and also your w letter of Januh3 stated **of** establish**you** now desire

the oplnlon of this Dopartnent Very truly yours c
Frantz DEUS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1835

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed January 23, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Leveraging Data Science to Improve Survey Operations: Discussion 

Kevin Deardorff

Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology (FCSM) 

Research and Policy Conference

11/4/21 

1

Disclaimer: Any views expressed are those of the author and not those of the U.S Census Bureau.

2

  Diverse Reasons for Data Science Applications in Governmental Programs

Cost and time savings

Reduce burden and increase quality

For respondents

For analysts

Increase innovation

Solution as a necessity

Quick wins

3

  Improving Survey Operations through Data Science

Build the Team for Success

Identify Roadblocks Early

Define Measures of Success

Plan for Iterative Exchanges

Develop Modular Solutions

4

Build the Team for Success

Embed data scientists into groups with subject matter knowledge

Ensure transparency with cross-area or even cross-agency collaborations

Share materials in a common space (GitHub)

Identify measures of success

5

Identify Roadblocks Early

Support training (often free and online) for staff

Leverage Cloud-based processing solutions

Identify areas where technological advances may create the need for new agency policy

6

Define Measures of Success

More timely, granular data

Higher quality data

Cost avoidance

Burden reduction on respondents and analysts

Other opportunities for staff

7

Develop Modular Solutions

Best solutions are designed for reuse

Avoid tailored, one off solutions

Take advantage of existing work—the goal should be collaboration

Implement solutions in stages

Identify quick wins to build enthusiasm and support

8

Plan for Iterative Exchanges

Meet respondents where they are

Recognize the value of user feedback

Take advantage of data in the wild

Encourage exchanges with open-source tools

9

Lessons Learned from Census

Often no dedicated funding to support these efforts

Consider smaller, reimbursable projects as pilot/proof of concept opportunities

Expect to be flexible and clever

Think incrementally

Go in with eyes wide open

10

Summary

Census has quickly shown success on a diverse group of programs using data science solutions

Many different types of projects are ideally suited for data science interventions

Incremental solutions engage staff, create positive momentum, and build credibility for data science solutions

Don’t be afraid of failure

11

Contact Information

Email:  Kevin.E.Deardorff@census.gov

LinkedIn:  Kevin Deardorff

# image2.jpeg

# image3.jpeg

# image1.png
Christopher Joseph BORDONARO, Former Husband, Appellant, v. Emily Joy BORDONARO, Former Wife, Appellee.

No. 1D18-4091

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 21, 2019

James Pratt O'Conner, Fernandina Beach, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Christopher Joseph Bordonaro appeals the trial court's order granting his former wife's Motion for Contempt/Enforcement and Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. The motion alleged that Appellant neglected his child support obligations under the Consent Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (Final Judgment). We agree that the trial court adjudicated issues during the contempt hearing that were not properly pleaded or noticed and improperly granted attorney's fees to the former wife. We reject all of Appellant's other claims.

The increase of Appellant's monthly child support payments is improper for two reasons. First, it did not use the requisite separate pleading, financial affidavits, or worksheet. §§ 61.14, 61.30(14), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.285(k). Second, a trial court cannot modify child support on a party's motion for contempt for nonpayment of child support. *McGrath v. Caron* , 8 So.3d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). As a result, the arrearages imposed by the trial court based on the improperly modified child support obligations were also improperly imposed.

Moreover, the trial court's order found that Appellant effectively abandoned his minor child. A motion for contempt or enforcement for failure to meet one's support obligations is not the proper vehicle to request a finding of abandonment. Abandonment must be established by clear and convincing evidence and is usually requested through a petition for termination of parental rights. *See**T.S. ex rel. D.H. v. Dep't of Children & Families* , 969 So.2d 494, 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

*227Finally, the trial court erroneously granted Appellant's former wife's request for attorney's fees without considering or making any findings regarding either party's need or ability to pay. *See**Fulmer v. Fulmer* , 961 So.2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ; *Perrin v. Perrin* , 795 So.2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand so that the trial court can 1) strike the modified increase in child support and related arrearages and make the requisite findings supporting the enforcement of Appellant's original child support obligation pursuant to the Final Judgment; 2) strike its finding that Bordonaro effectively abandoned his minor child; and 3) make the appropriate findings regarding both parties' ability to pay and need for attorney's fees.

REVERSED and REMANDED .

Wolf, Kelsey, and Winokur, JJ., concur.
Marston T. BISHOP and Tony Bishop v. Charles E. GREEN and Linda S. Green

2160429

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 5, 2018

Affirmed.