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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         117,544
<SECURITIES>                                 2,812,249
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,194,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,650,558
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,674,005
<PP&E>                                       6,900,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,265,937
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       29,329,945
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       222,610
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,713,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,265,937
<SALES>                                     11,803,705
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,803,705
<CGS>                                        9,637,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,637,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,054,633
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             450,206
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (328,426)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (328,426)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  38,151
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (290,275)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
CFPB and FDIC Youth Fina

Education Collaboratio
Proposed Youth Savings Pil

 School savings programs are a promisi

strategy to promote lifetime economic inclusion

 Why aren’t there more programs? Coul

 Uncertainty about best range of options Regulatory misunderstandings Benefits are unclear
Proposed Youth Savings Pil

 What FDIC is considering:

 Select a handful of programs through a comp

process

 Learn from these programs over a 1-2 year p Along the way, help participants to overcome 

challenges, learn from peers and utilize FDICresources

 Produce a report for banks interested in enga

this work
Proposed Youth Savings Pil

 Why do this? 

 Identify promising approaches to youth savin

elevate this work to foster the development opartnerships and programs

 What else would we want to accomplis

 Encourage experiential learning Inspire greater access to youth savings acco Scale promising practices (some of which ma

be known)
Proposed Youth Savings Pil

 Participant Eligibility

 FDIC-insured institutions working with a scho

other community partner

 Supervisory ratings 

 Selection Criteria

 Target audience Overall plan to manage relationship with part Overall approach to reach/serve students  Strategies to incentivize youth savings behav
Proposed Youth Savings P

 Phases

 I: 2014-2016 Academic Year (Existing Prog II: 2015-2016 Academic Year (New Program

 Timeline:

 April 2014: Get feedback from ComE-In mem June 1-July 31: Phase I application period August 2014-June 2016: Phase I period August 2015-June 2016: Phase II period December 2016: Final report on pilot
Thank you

Luke W. Reynolds

LuReynolds@fdic.gov

(703) 254-1045
#### In the Matter of Rose Donato, Respondent, v Nicholas E. Lucarelli, Appellant. In the Matter of Nicholas E. Lucarelli, Appellant, v Rose Donato, Respondent.

— In proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Meyer, J.), dated September 9, 1983, as granted the mother’s petition for enforcement of child support provisions incorporated into a judgment of divorce and ordered the father to pay a specified amount of arrears.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In a stipulation of divorce the parties agreed that the father should pay 12V2% of his “net pay” in child support for each of his four children. The court determined that for this purpose, “net pay” meant gross wages, tips and other compensation as reported on the father’s W-2 wage statement, plus any income tax refund received, minus all taxes, union dues and pension contributions paid. Upon a review of the record, we find that the court’s determination that this interpretation of “net pay” was in accordance with the original intention of the parties was not against the weight of the credible evidence nor contrary to the law. Therefore, its finding and computation of arrears based upon this finding should not be disturbed *(see, Shipman v Words of Power Missionary Enters.,*54 AD2d 1052). Titone, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
# C_2008308EN.01000701.xml

| 3.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5020 — Lesaffre/GBI UK)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 308/03)

On 11 July 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5020. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5020. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOEVAN JOSEPH , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 22

- 3201

[ March 2, 2023 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Cymonie Rowe , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2017

- CF

- 008721

- AXXX

- MB

.
Joevan Joseph, Belle Glade, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , C IKLIN and K UNTZ , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2060 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2060

To amend the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 
 2005 to exempt from the means test in bankruptcy cases, for a limited 
 period, qualifying reserve-component members who, after September 11, 
   2001, are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense 
                  activity for not less than 60 days.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2005

 Mr. Rohrabacher (for himself, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Evans, Mr. Jones of 
 North Carolina, and Mr. McKeon) introduced the following bill; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 
 2005 to exempt from the means test in bankruptcy cases, for a limited 
 period, qualifying reserve-component members who, after September 11, 
   2001, are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense 
                  activity for not less than 60 days.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

    Section 101(a)(2)(C) of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and 
Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-8) is amended by adding 
at the end of paragraph (2) of section 707(b) of title 11 of the United 
States Code, as added by such Act, the following:
    ``(E) Subparagraphs (A) through (C) shall not apply, and the court 
may not dismiss or convert a case filed under this chapter based on any 
form of means testing--
            ``(i)(I) while the debtor is on, and during the 180-day 
        period beginning immediately after the debtor is released from, 
        a period of active duty (as defined in section 101(d)(1) of 
        title 10) of not less than 60 days; or
            ``(II) while the debtor is performing, and during the 180-
        day period beginning immediately after the debtor is no longer 
        performing, a homeland defense activity (as defined in section 
        901(1) of title 32) performed for a period of not less than 60 
        days; and
            ``(ii) if after September 11, 2001, the debtor while a 
        member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces or a member 
        of the National Guard, was called to such active duty or 
        performed such homeland defense activity.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendment made by this Act shall take effect on April 20, 2005.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendment made by this Act 
shall apply only with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of the 
United States Code after April 20, 2005.
                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00573-CV

In re Texas General Land Office, Jorge Ramirez in His Official Capacity

and Maureen Mahoney in Her Official Capacity

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Filed: November 5, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         281,969
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,505
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (40,500)
<INVENTORY>                                    311,171
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,473,861
<PP&E>                                         165,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                (79,676)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,597,663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          917,385
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,478,423
<COMMON>                                           357
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,798,502)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,597,663
<SALES>                                         51,917
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,917
<CGS>                                           36,551
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,551
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               903,593
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (857,405)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (857,405)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  28,027
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (829,378)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.26)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 32680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13082]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR GLOBAL MEDIA


Public Input for USAGM 2022-2026 Strategic Plan

AGENCY: United States Agency for Global Media.

ACTION: Request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) requests 
public input to inform development of USAGM's Strategic Plan for fiscal 
years 2022-2026.

DATES: Submit comments by July 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
    <bullet> Agency website: www.usagm.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments at www.usagm.gov/request-for-public-input-on-usagm-strategic-plan-2022-2026.
    <bullet> Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9fefeafdf3f6fcfef9f9fef6edecdfeaecfef8f2b1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c1c190e00050f0d0a0a0d051e1f2c191f0d0b01420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include the phrase 
`strategic plan' in the subject line of the message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Moy, Acting Director of Public 
Affairs, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a5a5f484643494b4c4c4b4358596a5f594b4d47044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2d5d584f41444e4c4b4b4c445f5e6d585e4c4a40034a425b">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 920-2380.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) is 
an independent establishment that supervises U.S. international 
broadcasting under the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 
1948, the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (as amended), and 
other authorities. In accordance with the Government Performance and 
Results Modernization Act of 2010, USAGM is required to submit its 
Strategic Plan to Congress the year following the start of a 
presidential term.
    USAGM is in the process of developing its Strategic Plan for fiscal 
years 2022-2026 and is consulting a wide range of stakeholders. USAGM 
welcomes public input into this process on the following questions:
    <bullet> What are the biggest challenges facing USAGM and other 
publicly-funded international media over the next five years?
    <bullet> What are the biggest opportunities for USAGM and other 
publicly-funded international media over the next five years?
    <bullet> Do you have any advice for agency leaders on how to 
position USAGM to best fulfill its mission ``to inform, engage, and 
connect audiences around the world in support of freedom and 
democracy''?

    Dated: June 16, 2021.
Daniel Rosenhotlz,
Attorney-Advisor, Policy Officer U.S. Agency for Global Media.
[FR Doc. 2021-13082 Filed 6-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8610-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick G. Alver, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), rendered August 25, 1983, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress certain statements.

Judgment affirmed.

On the instant appeal, defendant argues, *inter alia,*that (1) one of the arresting officers physically abused him and (2) his testimony at the suppression hearing on this issue warranted a finding by the County Court that his two written confessions, *340which he subsequently made to a detective, were involuntary as a matter of law.

We disagree.

Initially, it must be noted that defendant’s claim of police brutality was contradicted by the testimony of the interrogating detective and the other arresting officer that defendant appeared to be in good condition prior to his interrogation except for a hand injury. Moreover, it is clear that it was not the interrogating detective who defendant claims abused him. In this regard, it has been held that a confession may be voluntary even though at some prior time, while in custody, an arrestee was subjected to unnecessary force *(see, People v Borowsky, 258*NY 371; *People v Langert,*44 Misc 2d 399, *affd 25*AD2d 952, *affd*21 NY2d 890). Under the circumstances, the voluntariness of defendant’s confessions presented an issue of credibility, and the County Court’s determination on that issue, which has support in the record, should not be disturbed on appeal *(People v Gee,*104 AD2d 561; *People v McMillian,*56 AD2d 662).

Defendant also argues that his confessions should have been suppressed pursuant to the holding of the Court of Appeals in *People v Bartolomeo (53*NY2d 225) since, at the time of his interrogation, he was represented by counsel on a pending unrelated charge.

We disagree. The record amply supports the finding of the County Court that the detective who interrogated the defendant did not have actual knowledge of defendant’s arrest on an unrelated charge at the time of the instant interrogation. Moreover, the record indicates that the interrogating detective specifically asked defendant “if he had a lawyer” and defendant answered “No”. Under these circumstances, defendant’s argument must be rejected *(see, People v Lucarano,*61 NY2d 138; *People v Bartolomeo, supra; People v Smith,*54 NY2d 954; *People v Fuschino,*59 NY2d 91; *People v Beverley,*104 AD2d 996). .

We have examined defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
[No. 38107-5-I.

Division One.

September 2, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Eric Rene Daniels, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 95-1-06109-1, Robert H. Alsdorf, J., entered February 9, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Webster, J., concurred in by Baker, C.J., and Kennedy, J.
#### LINDNER, Respondent, v. LAKE SHORE & M. S. RY. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 27, 1912.)

Action by John Lindner, as administrator, etc., against the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company. No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

DESIGN BASICS, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 1:16-cv-00232-TLS-SLC

)

CITATION HOMES, INC., and )

CITATION PARTNERS, L.L.C., )

doing business as Citation Partners, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is a motion for change of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) filed by

Defendants Citation Homes, Inc., and Citation Partners, L.L.C., doing business as Citation

Partners. (DE 18). In the motion, Defendants request that the Court transfer this action to the

Lafayette Division of this District for all further pre-trial and trial proceedings. As grounds for

the transfer, Defendants assert that the Lafayette Division includes Tippecanoe County, which is

the county in which Defendants employ a registered agent and is also the county in which

Defendants have their principal place of business. (DE 18 ¶¶ 3, 5). Defendants state that the

Lafayette Division would be more convenient to the parties because the majority of the witnesses

and evidence in the case are located in Tippecanoe County, Indiana. (DE 18 ¶ 7).

Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC, has filed a response indicating that it has no objection to the

venue transfer to the Lafayette Division. (DE 21). Plaintiff does request that the case remain

assigned to the same judges for efficiency reasons. 

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court

may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or
to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Because

the parties have no dispute regarding venue being transferred to the Lafayette Division,

Defendants’ motion for change of venue (DE 18) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to

transfer this action from the Fort Wayne Division to the Lafayette Division. Judge Springmann

and Magistrate Judge Collins will remain assigned to the case. 

SO ORDERED.

Entered this 21st day of October 2016. 

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
[No. 36769-2-I.

Division One.

August 4, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ian Teak Pocinwong, Jr., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 95-1-00276-0, Kathryn E. Trumbull, J., entered June 1, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Becker, J., concurred in by Agid and Ellington, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Lillian De Marco, Petitioner, v Cesar A. Perales, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, dated May 19, 1983, which, after a fair hearing, sustained a determination of the local agency terminating petitioner’s eligibility for public assistance.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

There was substantial evidence to support the determination. We particularly note (1) the testimony of Ms. Mittendorf, the local agency’s investigator, based on her contemporary notes of the interviews with petitioner as to the identity of the father of the as yet unborn child and as to the reason why she had earlier stated that the father was unknown, and (2) the fact that petitioner’s counsel at the fair hearing chose neither to cross-examine the investigator nor to examine her notes. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Gibbons and Niehoff, JJ., concur.
#### PEOPLE ex rel. FORD, Appellants, v. GILLETTE et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 17, 1899.)

Proceeding by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of William T. Ford, against George L. Gillette and others, assessors of the town of Clifton Park, Saratoga county.

No opinion. Order affirmed.