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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                         843,226
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,619,739
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 10,659,226
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,703,074
<PP&E>                                       4,632,159
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,576,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,979,490
<BONDS>                                     22,895,014
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           60,107
<PREFERRED>                                         37
<COMMON>                                         7,644
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,633,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,576,262
<SALES>                                     49,010,389
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            49,698,207
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               39,128,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,180,160
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,294,302
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,722,016
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,014
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,705,002
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,705,002
<EPS-BASIC>                                     $.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.24


</TABLE>
CARTER LAKELatitude: 40.32Longitude: -105.21Elevation: None

Carter Lake
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1975 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require the Securities 

Exchange Commission to refund or credit excess payments made to 

the Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2015 

Mr. MEEKS (for himself, Mr. HULTGREN, Mr. FOSTER, and Mrs. CAROLYN

B. MALONEY of New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require 

the Securities Exchange Commission to refund or credit 

excess payments made to the Commission. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Securities and Ex5 change Commission Overpayment Credit Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1975 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFUNDING OR CREDITING OVERPAYMENT OF SEC2 TION 31 FEES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 31 of the Securities Ex4 change Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78ee) is amended by add5 ing at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(n) OVERPAYMENT.—If a national securities ex7 change or national securities association pays to the Com8 mission an amount in excess of fees and assessments due 

9 under this section and informs the Commission of such 

10 amount paid in excess within 10 years of the date of the 

11 payment, the Commission shall offset future fees and as12 sessments due by such exchange or association in an 

13 amount equal to such excess amount.’’. 

14 (b) APPLICABILITY.—The amendment made by this 

15 section shall apply to any fees and assessments paid be16 fore, on, or after the date of enactment of this section. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
json

      Inflow                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Area                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json
Exhibit 99.1


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 Quarterly Report of The Thaxton Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, James D. Thaxton., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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.





/s/    JAMES D.
THAXTONJames D. Thaxton Chief
Executive Officer November 14, 2002





---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-77,638-23

EX PARTE NKRUMAH LAMUNBA VALIER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1150625-J IN THE 183RD DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual

assault and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment.

In his present application, Applicant raises four grounds. This application, however, presents

a more serious question. This Court’s records reflect that Applicant has filed nine prior applications

pertaining to this conviction. It is obvious from the record that Applicant continues to raise issues

that have been presented and rejected in previous applications or that should have been presented
2

in previous applications. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be lightly or easily abused. Sanders

v. U.S., 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Because of his

repetitive claims, we hold that Applicant’s claims are barred from review under Article 11.07, § 4,

and are waived and abandoned by his abuse of the writ. This application is dismissed.

Therefore, we instruct the Honorable Abel Acosta, Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals,

not to accept or file the instant application for a writ of habeas corpus, or any future application

pertaining to this conviction unless Applicant is able to show in such an application that any claims

presented have not been raised previously and that they could not have been presented in a previous

application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Bilton, 602 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: November 16, 2016

Do not publish
#### In the Matter of Anthony Castricone, Appellant, v Lucy Taylor Welch, or Director for Orleans County Probation Department, Respondent.

Submitted January 22, 2007;

decided March 27, 2007

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bernard McCutcheon, Appellant.

Memorandum: The prosecutor’s remarks during summation were not objected to at trial, and, therefore, are not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Williams,*46 NY2d 1070, 1071). Although the remarks denigrating defendant’s case were improper, the summation did not operate to deprive defendant of a fair trial, and reversal in the interest of justice is not warranted (CPL 470.15 [3]; *People v Hopkins,*58 NY2d 1079, 1083). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Dillon, J. — assault, second degree, and another offense.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7122

GREGORY LEON YOUNG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LORETTA K. KELLY, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:07-cv-00037-GEC) Submitted: October 17, 2007 Decided: November 14, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Leon Young, Appellant Pro Se. Denise Colette Anderson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Gregory Leon Young seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Young 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
Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed June 26, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 17

- 00206

- CV

____________ JUAN CARLOS RUVALCAB A, ELAM MEAT MARKET, L.L.C., AND

SUPERMERCADO LATINO, L.L.C. , Appellant s
V. RAFAEL ORTEGA, ET AL , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 33606



### ABATEMENT ORDER
Appellee filed an unopposed motion for an extension to file its brief on the ground that the parties have settled the case in principle. The motion is GRANTED
and the court orders as follows: The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s
active docket until A ugust 26, 2018 . The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s
active docket after that time, or when a motion to dismiss the appeal or other2

dispositive motion is filed, whichever is earlier. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2112 

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, unique 

ZIP Code for North Plainfield, New Jersey. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2015 

Mr. LANCE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a 

single, unique ZIP Code for North Plainfield, New Jersey. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SINGLE, UNIQUE ZIP CODE FOR NORTH PLAIN4 FIELD, NEW JERSEY. 

5 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact6 ment of this section, the United States Postal Service shall 

7 designate a single, unique ZIP Code applicable to the area 

8 encompassing only North Plainfield, New Jersey. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001001185
<NAME>                        IDX SYSTEMS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1999              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1999              JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1                        1
<CASH>                              7,338                   13,576
<SECURITIES>                       63,281                  105,469
<RECEIVABLES>                     114,519                   82,231
<ALLOWANCES>                       (2,724)                  (1,842)
<INVENTORY>                             0                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  203,521                  210,251
<PP&E>                             94,093                   65,530
<DEPRECIATION>                     43,520                   31,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    274,104                  259,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              63,227                   56,202
<BONDS>                                 0                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0                        0
<PREFERRED>                             0                        0
<COMMON>                              357                      273
<OTHER-SE>                         201,285                 192,619
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       274,104                 259,943
<SALES>                            160,905                 164,971
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   160,905                 164,971
<CGS>                              105,098                  92,461
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       72,432                  56,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     4,045                   3,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       246                     301
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     858                     434
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (17,008)                 17,704
<INCOME-TAX>                        (6,180)                 10,340
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (10,828)                  7,364
<DISCONTINUED>                           0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0                       0
<CHANGES>                                0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                       (10,828)                  7,364
<EPS-BASIC>                        (0.39)                   0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.39)                   0.26



</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS RAMOS VALLEJO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74840

Agency No. A092-060-411

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Ramos Vallejo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.

FILED

SEP 24 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74840

This court lacks jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination

that Ramos Vallejo did not merit cancellation of removal. See Romero-Torres v.

Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2003) (this court lacks jurisdiction to

consider “all discretionary decisions involved in the cancellation of removal

context, including the ultimate discretionary decision to deny relief”).

Ramos Vallejo’s contention that the IJ failed to properly weigh his equities

is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable claim over which

we have jurisdiction. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.

2009).

Ramos Vallejo’s remaining contention is unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
Relationships between Flow and Surface Area, Volume, and 

Depth for Backwaters Surveyed in September 2011 by 

Argonne National Laboratory, Western Area Power Administration, and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000

Area (m2)

Flow (cfs)

Area BW 02 BW 05 BW 07

BW 08 BW 10
0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000

Volume (m3)

Flow (cfs)

Volume

BW 02 BW 05 BW 07

BW 08 BW 10
0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000

Mean Depth (m)

Flow (cfs)

Mean Depth BW 02 BW 05 BW 07

BW 08 BW 10
#### PEOPLE v. DE RIVIERE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 18, 1896.)

Action by the people of the state of New York against Lucien de Riviere.

No opinion. Motion granted by consent.
# L_2010107DE.01002601.xml

| 29.4.2010 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 107/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2010

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 107/26

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 619/2009 der Kommission vom 13. Juli 2009 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 474/2006 zur Erstellung der gemeinschaftlichen Liste der Luftfahrtunternehmen, gegen die in der Gemeinschaft eine Betriebsuntersagung ergangen ist

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 182 vom 15. Juli 2009
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 182 vom 15. Juli 2009

Seite 18:

anstatt:

„Alle Luftfahrtunternehmen, die von den Behörden Indonesiens, die für die Regulierungsaufsicht zuständig sind, zugelassen wurden, ausgenommen Garuda Indonesia, Mandala Airlines und Ekspres Transportasi Antarbuena, einschließlich“

muss es heißen:

„Alle Luftfahrtunternehmen, die von den Behörden Indonesiens, die für die Regulierungsaufsicht zuständig sind, zugelassen wurden, ausgenommen Garuda Indonesia, Airfast Indonesia, Mandala Airlines und Ekspres Transportasi Antarbuena, einschließlich“.

---
Exhibit 32.2

Informational Addendum to Report on Form 10-Q

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002

Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

The undersigned Chief Financial Officer of OYO Geospace Corporation does hereby certify as follows:

Solely for the purpose of meeting the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may
be applicable to this Report on Form 10-Q, the undersigned hereby certify that this Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in this
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of OYO Geospace Corporation.



/s/ Thomas T. McEntireName:

Thomas T. McEntireTitle:

Chief Financial OfficerAugust 8, 2008
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 177 / Thursday, September 16, 2021 / Presidential Documents 51579 

Executive Order 14044 of September 13, 2021 

Amending Executive Order 14007 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, and in order to expand the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, it is hereby ordered as 

follows: 

Section 1. Amendment to Executive Order 14007. The first sentence of 

section 2(b) of Executive Order 14007 of January 27, 2021 (President’s Council 

of Advisors on Science and Technology), is hereby amended to read as 

follows: ‘‘(b) The PCAST shall be composed of not more than 32 members.’’. 

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed 

to impair or otherwise affect: 

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, 

or the head thereof; or 

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. 

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and 

subject to the availability of appropriations. 

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, 

substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party 

against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, 

employees, or agents, or any other person. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

September 13, 2021. 

[FR Doc. 2021–20164 

Filed 9–15–21; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 3295–F1–P 


BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 19, 2021

NO. 03-21-00385-CR

John D. Ferrara, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION—

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the trial court’s denial of appellant’s Motion to Quash information. 

Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.