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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>      0001058560
<NAME>     EVEREST HEALTHCARE SERVICES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          4,222
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  64,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (9,869)
<INVENTORY>                                     4,493
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               71,756
<PP&E>                                         72,169
<DEPRECIATION>                               (33,848)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                212,931
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          41,220
<BONDS>                                       100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           13
<OTHER-SE>                                     43,028
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  212,931
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              233,563
<CGS>                                         214,153
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 214,153
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             14,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 5,684
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (3,291)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    2,393
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of John Park, Respondent, v John A. Kapica et al., Appellants.

Submitted March 20, 2006;

decided March 27, 2007

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal granted.

Judge Jones taking no part.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Richard GARZA, Appellant.

No. 06-2424.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 5, 2007.

Filed: July 19, 2007.

Thomas J. Kangior, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.

Richard Garza, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.

Michael T. Levy, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Richard Garza (Garza) appeals the 151-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Garza’s sentence. Garza’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing Garza is dissatisfied with the extent of his sentence reduction. This argument is unavailing. *See United States v. Coppedge,*135 F.3d 598, 599 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (concluding a challenge to the extent of a sentence reduction upon the government’s Rule 35(b) motion was unreviewable because the appeal was not based on any criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)); *United States v. Haskins,*479 F.3d 955, 957 (8th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (explaining the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the reasonableness of a sentence following a Rule 35(b) reduction; *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not expand § 3742(a) to include appellate review of discretionary sentencing reductions).

Having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm Garza’s sentence.

1

. The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-1212WM

_____________ Colleen E. Newport; James F. Newport, * * Appellants, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Missouri Army National Guard; * [UNPUBLISHED] Raymond L. Pendergrass, MG, * * Appellees. *

_____________ Submitted: May 7, 1997

Filed: May 12, 1997

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Colleen E. Newport and James F. Newport appeal the district court's order s dismissing their action against the Missouri Army National Guard and Adjut ant General RaymondL. Pendergrass and denying their postjudgment motions. Having carefully revi ewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude the judgment of the distric t court was correct. We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# Continuation of the Exercise of Certain Authorities Under the Trading With the Enemy Act

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the Secretary of the Treasury

Under section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223 (91 Stat. 1625; 50 U.S.C. 4305 note), and a previous determination on September 9, 2020 (85 *FR* 57075, September 14, 2020), the exercise of certain authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act is scheduled to expire on September 14, 2021.

I hereby determine that the continuation of the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba for 1 year is in the national interest of the United States.

Therefore, consistent with the authority vested in me by section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223, I continue for 1 year, until September 14, 2022, the exercise of those authorities with respect to Cuba, as implemented by the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 CFR part 515.

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the *Federal Register.*

[FR Doc. 2021-19747

Billing code 4811-33-P
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to the best of my knowledge; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by
the Report and results of operations for the Company for the period covered by the
Report.
 Dated: February 8, 2006/s/ Robin L. WashingtonRobin L. WashingtonChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 11


                              DATAWORKS CORPORATION
          STATEMENTS OF CONSOLIDATED COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                   (UNAUDITED)
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      Three Months Ended                   Nine Months Ended
                                                                         September 30,                       September 30,
                                                                -----------------------------          --------------------------
                                                                   1998               1997                1998            1997
                                                                ----------         ----------          ----------      ----------
<S>                                                             <C>                <C>                 <C>             <C>        
BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net Income (loss)                                               $      (71)        $   (9,190)         $    3,851      $   (5,861)
                                                                ==========         ==========          ==========      ==========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                14,397             13,870              14,272          13,765
                                                                ==========         ==========          ==========      ==========

Basic earnings (loss) per share                                 $     0.00         $    (0.66)         $     0.27      $    (0.43)
                                                                ==========         ==========          ==========      ==========


DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE:

Net Income (loss)                                               $      (71)        $   (9,190)         $    3,922      $   (5,861)
                                                                ==========         ==========          ==========      ==========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                14,397             13,870              14,272          13,765

Weighted average options and warrants to purchase common
     Stock as determined by the treasury method                       --                 --                   571            --
                                                                ----------         ----------          ----------      ----------

Weighted average number of diluted common shares outstanding        14,397             13,870              14,843          13,765
                                                                ==========         ==========          ==========      ==========

Diluted earning (loss) per share                                $     0.00         $    (0.66)         $     0.26      $    (0.43)
                                                                ==========         ==========          ==========      ==========
</TABLE>
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 11530]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “City of Cinema: Paris 1850-1907” at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, California, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000.                

Matthew R. Lussenhop,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-19551 Filed 9-10-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Raggio, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered June 26, 1985, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty knowingly and voluntarily and was fully advised of the rights he was waiving *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). At no time prior to sentencing did the defendant seek to withdraw his plea *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636). The defendant now seeks to vacate his plea based upon an alleged representation by the District Attorney to return certain moneys taken from the defendant at the time of his arrest. The plea and sentence minutes reveal that the District Attorney represented only as follows: "I’ll state for the record that if there is *[sic]*certain monies in the possession of the District Attorney’s oflice, if they are not — if they are not the result of illegal *[sic]*obtained — by illegal means, then we certainly have no legal right to keep them.” This representation was clearly not a condition of the plea and cannot serve as a basis to vacate the same. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.
---

---

Exhibit 13.(a).1

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 Annual Report of Blue Square-Israel Ltd. (the Company) on
Form 20-F/A for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby
certify that to the best of our knowledge:

1.
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|Date: January 29, 2008 |  | By: /s/ Uri Falach
Uri FalachTemporary Chief Executive Officer
|---------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: January 29, 2008 |  | By: /s/ Dror MoranDror MoranChief Financial Officer
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RICHARD B. BURKE, Individually, )

d/b/a RICHARD B. BURKE, )

ATTORNEY, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1976

)

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL )

ASSOCIATION, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed January 30, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Andrea McHugh, Judge.

Martin E. Leach of Feiler & Leach, P.L., for 

Coral Gables, Appellant.

Ronald M. Emanuel of Emanuel & Zwiebel, 

PLLC, Plantation, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Jeffrey Kozlow, Respondent.

Submitted February 13, 2007;

decided February 20, 2007

Motion by New York State District Attorneys Association for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two *869copies of the brief may be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
#### Shakespeare Community Development Corporation *v.*The Zoning Commission of the Town of Southbury

*Leonard M. Coceo,*in support of the petition.

*James H. W. Conklin II,*in opposition.

Submitted June 5

decided June 18, 1975

The plaintiff’s petition for certification for appeal from the Court of Common Pleas for the judicial district of Waterbury is denied.
SAND GATE DIV FROM FT SUMNER CANAL AT FT SUMNERLatitude: 34.476Longitude: -104.258Elevation: 4028

SAND GATE DIV FROM FT SUMNER CANAL AT FT SUMNER

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wesner Springs Site Page...



Wesner Springs

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 18-0145

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA,

INC.

v.

MOISES GALLEGOS, ET AL. §

§

§

§

§

§ Dallas County,

5th District.

March 29, 2019

Petitioner's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, dismissed.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under

the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC., pay all costs

incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 3rd day of April, 2019

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
#### GIDEON, Appellant, v. DWYER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June, 1896.)

Action by David Gideon against Philip J. Dwyer.

PER CURIAM.

The court, having control over its own judgments, decided that, in furtherance of justice, this ease should be heard on the merits (40 N. Y. Supp. 1053); there being an excuse presented, and a defense alleged to exist. No abuse of discretion is shown, and the terms imposed are more than an indemnity to the plaintiff for the expenses to which he has been put, and the delay he has suffered. The •order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and ■disbursements.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 24, 2014

d0917 

# Order

Clerk September 24, 2014

148741

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148741

COA: 317110

Gladwin CC: 01

- 006657

- FY

JAMES ALLEN BURKEEN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and i t is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Alvin Wayne BOOTH, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Corr. Officer FISHER; Jimmy E. Weaver, Chairman; Lewis W. Barlow, Superintendent, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 06-7988.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2007.

Decided: June 5, 2007.

Alvin Wayne Booth, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Alvin Wayne Booth appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Booth v. Corr. Officer Fisher,*No. 2:06-cv00633-WDK (E.D.Va. Nov. 14, 2006). We dispense with oral 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.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARCUS DION MCKOY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CR-99-57-HO, CA-02-144-H)

Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 21, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcus Dion McKoy, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Jude Darrow, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Marcus Dion McKoy seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. McKoy cannot appeal

this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate

of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not issue

absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas appellant meets

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find

that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, ,

123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude McKoy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### People *v.*Flynn.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

May 12, 1890.)

No opinion. Conviction and judgment affirmed, for non-submission of papers by stipulation.
SOUTH FORK FRYINGPAN RIVER AT UPPER STATION NEAR NORRIELatitude: 39.239Longitude: -106.59Elevation: None

SOUTH FORK FRYINGPAN RIVER AT UPPER STATION NEAR NORRIE

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chapman Tunnel Site Page...



Chapman Tunnel

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Kiln Site Page...



Kiln

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Nast Lake Site Page...



Nast Lake