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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           8,021
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,990
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,893
<PP&E>                                         139,709
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 264,372
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,063
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,499
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   264,372
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                59,251
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   35,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,388
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,785
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,714
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,071
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,071
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20


</TABLE>
#### LOEWER, Appellant, v. JOHNSON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by Joseph Loewer against William Johnson.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of IBSG International, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
      Rivers, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)       
      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.




Date: June
                  13, 2006
            
            **IBSG
                INTERNATIONAL, INC.**
              
              
              BY:
                /S/ Michael Rivers
              ——————————————
              Michael
                Rivers
              President,
                Chief Executive Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, September 9, 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3087.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, notification of intent to participate must be made with Fred Smith. For more information please contact Fred Smith at 1-888-912-1227 or (202) 317-3087, or write TAP Office, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 1509, Washington, DC 20224 or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*

Dated: August 2, 2021.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2021-16778 Filed 8-5-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Lawrence *v.*The State.

March 9, 1915.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Daniel. Butts superior court. November 14, 1914.

*0. M. Dulce, J. T. Moore,*and *O. L. Redman,*for plaintiff in error.

*Warren Grice, attorney-general., E. M. Owen, solicitor-general,*and *A. L. Henson,*contra.

Beck, J.

1. Where, upon the trial of one under an indictment charging murder, the court properly charged the jury upon the subject of voluntary manslaughter, that grade of homicide being involved under the evidence in the case, and, following the definition of voluntary manslaughter as contained in the Penal Code, § 65, the court charged: “You will observe from this definition of voluntary manslaughter, that, in order to reduce a homicide from murder to voluntary manslaughter, there must have been some actual assault upon the person killing by the person killed, or an attempt by the person killed to commit serious personal injury on the person killing, or other equivalent circumstances sufficient to justify the excitement of passion, and to exclude all idea of deliberation or malice, express or implied. . . If you believe in this case that this defendant killed the deceased, and at the time of the killing or just before the killing that the deceased made an actual assault upon him or was attempting to commit a serious injury upon him, or other equivalent circumstances to justify the excitement of passion, and he killed him for those reasons, then the crime would not be murder but voluntary manslaughter,” it was not error for the court to refuse to charge further, upon written request, that “An assault and battery is a serious injury, as contemplated by the law of voluntary manslaughter given you in charge.” So far as the request to charge was legal and pertinent, it had been sufficiently covered by the charge upon the subject of voluntary manslaughter, as given.

2, The evidence authorized the verdict rendered, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. ■

*Judqment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
EXHIBIT 99.14(a)

<PAGE>


                        [RYDER SCOTT COMPANY LETTERHEAD]


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS


      As independent oil and gas consultants,  Ryder Scott Company,  L.P. hereby
consents  to: (a) the use of our report  setting  forth our  estimates of proved
reserves  and future  revenue,  as of  December  31,  2000,  to the  interest of
Tengasco,  Inc.  (Tengasco)  in  certain  oil  and gas  properties,  and (b) all
references to our firm included in or made a part of Tengasco's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000.


                                                   /s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

                                                       RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

Houston, Texas
April 12, 2001
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Written Statement
Pursuant To
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 The undersigned, Steven G. Murdock, the Chief Executive Officer of Meade Instruments Corp.
(the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that: (i) the Form 10Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2005 of the Company (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: July 15, 2005 By: /s/ Steven G. Murdock
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stacy M. Riffe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Stacy M. Riffe     
|Stacy M. Riffe         
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 9, 2004
The Attorney General of Texas 

July 9, 1979 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

John W. Holcombe, D.V.M. Opinion No. MW- 31 

Executive Director 

Texas Animal Health Commission Re: Whether the executive 

P. 0. Box 12966 

Austin, Texas 787U 

director of the Texas Animal 

Health Commission is required to 

be a veterinarian. 

Dear Dr. Holcombe: 

You have asked if the executive director of the Texas Animal Health 

Commission is required to be a veterinarian. 

Article i’O14f-l, V.T.C.S., provides in part: 

Section 23. The [Animal Health] Commission is 

hereby authorized to employ a Chief Veterinarian, a 

first assistant and as many Assistant Veterinarians as 

may be necessary; also, such other persons as may be 

necessary for the enforcement of the provisions of 

this Act, and other Live Stock Sanitary Acts; also, 

clerks, stenographers, chief clerk and all necessary 

clerical help. 

See also V.T.C.S. art. 7014~1, 5 31 (commission authorized to employ a chief 

veterinarian and assistant veterinarians for the eradication and control of 

contagious, infectious, and communicable diseases of livestock). 

The term “executive director” does not appear in the statutes relating 

to the Animal Health Commission, although there is a line item appropriation for an executive director. Acts 1977, 65th Leg., ch. 872, at 2836. 

Material which you have furnished us indicates that although the executive 

director has also served as chief veterinarian from 1956 until the present, for 

the 20 years prior to 1956, the chief administrative officer was not a 

veterinarian. 

In light of the absence of any statutory requirement that the chief 

administrative officer of the Animal Health Commission also be the chief 

veterinarian and in light of the past practice of having a director who is not 

p. 95 
John W. Holcombe, D.V.M. - Page Two (HK-31) 

chief veterinarian, it is our opinion that the executive director of the Animal Health 

Commission is not required to be a veterinarian. Of course, a non-veterinarian employed 

as executive director may not act as chief veterinarian. 

SUMMARY 

The Executive Director of the Texas Animal Health Commission is 

not required to be a veterinarian. 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

TED L. HARTLEY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by C. Robert Heath 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

David B. Brooks 

Austen Furse 

Susan Garrison 

Bob Gauss 

Rick Gilpin 

William G Reid 

Bruce Youngblood 

p. 96
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.114





                      EXTENSION LETTER FOR PROMISSORY NOTES
                          DATED AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1998


         This Extension Letter hereby amends those certain Promissory Notes
listed below by and between First Light Entertainment Corporation (therein
called "Obligor") and Vivian W. Jones, (therein called "Holder") and extends the
due dates of said Promissory Notes for a period of 365 days with all principal
and any accrued but unpaid interest due on or before December 31, 1999.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         Date of Promissory Note    Amount of Promissory Note
         -----------------------    -------------------------
<S>      <C>                        <C>
(1)      As of July 31, 1997              $  9,600.00
(2)      As of July 31, 1996              $ 28,000.00 ($5,000 balance outstanding)
(3)      As of May 6, 1995                $ 20,000.00
</TABLE>


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Extension Letter to
be duly executed under the seal on the date and year first above written.

                                       "OBLIGOR"



                                       By:  /s/ J. ERIC VAN ATTA 
                                         --------------------------------------
                                          First Light Entertainment Corporation
                                          1245 Fowler St., N.W.
                                          Atlanta, Georgia 30318

"HOLDER"



       /s/ VIVIAN W. JONES        
---------------------------------
        Vivian W. Jones
#### Arthur T. Davidson et al., Appellants, v Ha Il-Bo, Respondent.

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gagliardi, J.), dated June 3, 1982, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him and (2) a purported judgment of the same court, dated May 17, 1983, which, upon a jury verdict in the plaintiffs’ favor on the issue of liability only and a jury verdict finding that the plaintiffs had not been damaged, allegedly dismissed their complaint.

Appeal from the purported judgment dismissed.

Order affirmed.

Defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

We have reviewed the plaintiffs’ contentions with respect to the order dated June 3, 1982 and find them to be without merit.

The purported judgment is merely an extract of the clerk’s minutes of trial and is not a judgment. No appeal lies from an extract of the minutes of trial. We note, however, that even if the paper in question had been an appealable judgment, we would nevertheless have dismissed the appeal therefrom on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to order and settle the transcript of the trial as required by CPLR 5525 (a) *(see, Perry v Tauro,*21 AD2d 804), and this case does not fall within the exception (set forth in CPLR 5525 [b]) to the rule requiring that the entire record of the proceedings be transcribed. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; PAR19-319: NIDDK Central Repositories Non-Renewable Sample Access (X01) Review.                    

*Date:*                         September 13, 2021.                    

*Time:*                         2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Najma S. Begum, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7349, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-8894,                         *begumn@niddk.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 4, 2021.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2021-16901 Filed 8-6-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SABIL M. MUJAHID,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

DEBBIE MILLER,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 13-36014

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00186-TMB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 11, 2015

Anchorage, Alaska

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Sabil M. Mujahid (Mujahid), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In

the petition, Mujahid challenged a disciplinary proceeding finding him guilty of

disobeying a direct order to cease talking with another inmate. 

FILED

SEP 02 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Mujahid is challenging conditions of his confinement that occurred some

time in the fairly distant past, in a facility where he is no longer housed. In

addition, Mujahid concedes that he lost no good-time credits because of his

disciplinary segregation. Accordingly, because Mujahid does not challenge the

duration of his confinement or an ongoing increased restriction on the conditions

of his confinement, habeas relief is not available to address Mujahid’s challenge. 

See Nettles v. Grounds, 788 F.3d 992, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[H]abeas

jurisdiction is available only for claims that, if successful, would have some

shortening effect on the length of a person’s custody . . . .”); id. at 1004 (same for

claims involving “greater restrictions of . . . liberty”); see also Skinner v. Switzer,

562 U.S. 521, 535 n.13 (2011) (“[W]hen a prisoner’s claim would not necessarily

spell speedier release, that claim does not lie at the core of habeas corpus, and may

be brought, if at all, under § 1983 . . . .”) (citations omitted). 

AFFIRMED. 

2