alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information derived from Kiddie Academy
International, Inc.'s unaudited financial statements for the twenty-eight weeks
ended April 13, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements and the notes thereto.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   7-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-13-1997
<CASH>                                             396
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      133
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        102
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,662
<PP&E>                                           1,099
<DEPRECIATION>                                     378
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,768
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,341
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
[COMMON]                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                       (198)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,768
<SALES>                                          4,285
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,285
<CGS>                                            5,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,269
[OTHER-INCOME]                                     151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
[INTEREST-INCOME]                                    8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (825)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (825)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (825)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Sf,CURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

Address of Administrative Law Judge Docketing Center

ALJ Docketing Center

U.S. Custom House

40 South Gay Street, Room 414

Baltimore, MD 21 2024022

Email: alidqcketcenterlnluscg.rnil

Phone: (410) 962-5100

Toll Free: (866) 612-7 524 [6lA-SKCG]

Fax: (410) 962-1746

Toll Free Fax: (877) 243-3453 [CGE-FILEI

COMPLAINANT:

UNITED STATI'S COAST GUARD

RESPONDENT: Joseph Anthony Leone DOCKET NI IMBER ]0]J-0I62

WITHDRAWAL FROMDOCKET CG ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY NUMBER

7(r6823-l

The Coast Guard initiated an administrative proceeding by filing a Complaint on April 25,2023,

seeking Revocation of Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential.

On May I 1,2023,the Coast Guard filed a Notice of Withdrawal from docket as

The Respondent signed a Voluntary Surrender Agreement under 46 CFR $5.203

This matter is removed from the docket and closed without prejudice effective this date. The

Coast Guard reserves the right to file a new Complaint in this matter.

Done and Dated May 15,2023 al

Baltimore, MD

l-arr"z"t, W.k/ar--

Lauren M. Meus

Hearing Docket Clerk

U.S. Coast Guard

By Direction of the Chief Administrative Law

Judge
#### F. N. Butt v. John E. Schrimpf.

Where the plaintiff in error assigned as error that the judgment against him was excessive, and the defendant remitted the excess in the supreme court, the judgment was reversed and reformed, leaving the costs to stand against the defendant in the district court, hut giving him his costs in the supreme court. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 1562, Note 604.)

Error from Harris. The case was tried before Hon. Benjamin Shropshire, one of the district judges.

The suit was on two notes, each for $300, dated July 1, 1859, with interest at twelve per cent, from date. The judgment was rendered May 15, 1867, for $1,276 86.

*602The defendant assigned for error, that the “ interest was compounded.” The exact excess seems to have been $110 20. The defendant had pleaded, but withdrew his plea.

*Henderson £ Whitfield,*for plaintiff in error.

*A.*P. _27. *W. Thompson,*for defendant in error.

Morrill, O. J.

—Judgment was rendered against the plaintiff in error for $1,276 86. He assigns as error, that the judgment was excessive.

Defendant in error acknowledges the error, and remits $110 20.

The judgment will therefore be reversed, and proceeding to enter such judgment as the district court should have rendered, it is considered that John E. Schrimpf have and recover of F. H. Butt the sum of $1,166 60, with interest at twelve per cent, per annum, from May 15, 1867, and costs in the district court, and that Schrimpf, the defendant, pay the costs in this court.

Reversed and reformed.
#### LYNCH et al., Appellants, v. SANDERS, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

October 2, 1896.)

Action by Daniel'Lyneh and another against William Sanders.

No opinion. Motion for rear.gument granted, without costs. See 40 N. Y. Supp. 594.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE AlTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS**
**AUSTIN**

Eonarable 0. X. Talbbt aolmty AttoraQy asamp, Terse '
BQar 81lY 

### oplnlon lo. 0: Ret AddlW lltoenre s 6 OSaomnerala IQl@l 8h be puld in uat of 

### 4 A 'II



### Pe8idQaoe
littor of Ray thlr drpertmeat,

That psrt OS miole 66750-2 **0t that**  **RQV~B~~ aivu**  **stdi UtQa**  of Texas, **petilaeaat to**  **tbn, Queotlon**  b~sors **UII, ma&r** ~:nornbleC. W. Talb&, Psga 2

**publie hlghuayir**  **OS this**  **State, ud**  **crbah ohauf**  four, &all 

### apply sooh year to the StateHighway Depnrtmentthrough the County Tax Colleotor of the caonty in whiah he mesides SOP the 1'0istratfan of each lsueh vehlole ovmul OF oontro fled by him, or Sbr a oheuSfmr's li~cm8e,Sor the **@XlBUiQJ OX**  **’ tum.**  **‘ ent**  **calbn?lm moSr**  **01 unex~lmd**  portion thereof * * 

### l." Conetmalngmaah statute,ve held ia our opinionHo. O-1950 that 8 oorporatlon&ml& regieter Its equipment in the county OS its ryldeatuo. Our opinionRo. O-1023 cormtruedthe word roeidenoe to be synonymous vlth dom~oiln, The domiolle of a corporationia the place OS its prlnoipal ofiioe.

The oorporattoninvolvitd ln your InqulFJ,having heretofore paid lloerme Seer en the equfpmnt involved to the Tax Colleatorof Travir County, Texa8, hew l atablimhedthe ownership 

### and oontrol OS 

### suoh equipment am being in the corporation. Eming so l

mtabllahedovnersh.tpZntthn oorporation,

u&the owner reelding ln Travis County, %x88, we bolleve that~theadditions1 Sllfn@ Sees uhould be paid in Travlll CounW, Texas, end you am so edvlred.
# C_2021459EN.01004801.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/48

---

EUROPEAN RESEARCH EXECUTIVE AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/48)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/research-executive-agency-financial-year-2020_en

---
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2252 

To clarify the effective date of certain provisions of the Border Patrol Agent 

Pay Reform Act of 2014, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2015 

Mr. HURD of Texas (for himself, Mr. WELCH, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. FARENTHOLD, and Mr. O’ROURKE) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform 

A BILL 

To clarify the effective date of certain provisions of the 

Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF CER4 TAIN PROVISIONS OF THE BORDER PATROL 

5 AGENT PAY REFORM ACT OF 2014. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2 of the Border Patrol 

7 Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–277) is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2252 IH

1 ‘‘(i) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsections (b), (c), (d), 

2 and (g), and the amendments made by such subsections, 

3 shall take effect on the first day of the first pay period 

4 beginning on or after January 1, 2016, except that— 

5 ‘‘(1) any provision in section 5550(b) of title 5, 

6 United States Code, as added by subsection (b), re7 lating to administering elections and making ad8 vance assignments to a regular tour of duty shall be 

9 applicable before such effective date to the extent de10 termined necessary by the Director of the Office of 

11 Personnel Management; and 

12 ‘‘(2) the Director may issue regulations as nec13 essary prior to such effective date.’’. 

14 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub15 section (a) shall be deemed to have been enacted on the 

16 date of enactment of the Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform 

17 Act of 2014 (Public Law 113–277). 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2080 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2080

 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
         of a hydroelectric project involving Clark Canyon Dam.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2015

 Mr. Zinke (for himself, Mr. Simpson, and Mr. Labrador) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
         of a hydroelectric project involving Clark Canyon Dam.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT INVOLVING CLARK CANYON DAM.

    Notwithstanding the time period described in section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12429, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as 
the ``Commission'') shall, at the request of the licensee for the 
project, and after reasonable notice and in accordance with the 
procedures of the Commission under that section, reinstate the license 
and extend the time period during which the licensee is required to 
commence construction of project works for the 3-year period beginning 
on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: August 7, 2014 518117

________________________________ In the Matter of RORY DOLAN, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: June 9, 2014 Before: Garry, J.P., Rose, Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________ Rory Dolan, Otisville, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Following a verbal altercation with another inmate in the laundry area and bathroom of their housing unit, petitioner was charged in a detailed misbehavior report with creating a disturbance. That report, as well as the testimony of the correction officer who authored it, provided substantial evidence for the determination that petitioner was guilty as charged (see Matter of Green v Bradt, 91 AD3d 1235, 1237 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 802 [2012]; Matter of Hale v Selsky, 57 AD3d 1136, 1137 [2008], appeal dismissed 12 NY3d 776 [2009]). Petitioner's contrary testimony that he was not arguing with the other inmate-2- 518117

and was only speaking loudly because of the nearby washing machines and dryers presented a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve (see Matter of Hale v Selsky, 57 AD3d at 1137). Further, the record does not support petitioner's assertion that the Hearing Officer was biased or that the determination flowed from that alleged bias (see Matter of Ferguson v Fischer, 116 AD3d 1314, 1314 [2014]). Petitioner's remaining contentions are either unpreserved or lack merit. Garry, J.P., Rose, Egan Jr., Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50125 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ELMER DEAL ALLISON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-89-CR-014

- - - - - - - - - - June 30, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Elmer Dean Allison has filed a motion with this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). "To proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, a litigant must be economically eligible, and his appeal must not be frivolous." Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't , 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). Allison appeals from the district court's denial of his "Motion Under Title 28 U.S.C. § 3572-73" to correct an "error" in his sentencing. In his appellant's brief, Allison makes clearNo. 95-50125 -2-
that he is relying upon "18 U.S.C. §§ 3572-73." Neither section, however, provides jurisdiction to the district court to consider such a motion. Section 3572 provides, in relevant part, that a sentence to pay a fine is a final judgment for all purposes, unless it can be "(1) modified or remitted under section 3573 ; (2) corrected under rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and section 3742 ; or (3) appealed and modified under section 3742." 18 U.S.C. § 3572(c) (emphasis added). None of these subsections apply to Allison. A guidelines sentence may be modified under 18 U.S.C. § 3573 or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 only upon petition by the Government. 18 U.S.C. § 3573; Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). The provisions for modification of a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 are available to a defendant only upon direct appeal of a sentence or conviction; this court may not review his sentence on this non-direct appeal. See Williams v. United States , 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1118-21 (1992); United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 600 (1994). Because the district court had no jurisdiction to entertain Allison's motion under either 18 U.S.C. § 3572 or § 3573, its denial was proper. Allison's appeal does not raise a non-frivolous legal issue. Therefore, his motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Pos t Of fic e Bo x 12548

, Austin

, Texa s 7 8 7 1 1 - 2 5 4 8 • ( 5 1 2 ) 4 6 3 - 2 1 0 0 • ww w.texasattor neygeneral.gov

November 5, 2015

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle Via File & ServeXpress Clerk of the Court Third Court of Appeals 209 West 14 th Street, Room 101 Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Case No. 03-14- 00 774- CV; Appellants, Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Nicole Oria, in her Official Capacity as Executive Director/Cross

Appellant, Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M. v. Appellee, Ellen Jefferson, D.V.M./CrossAppellees Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners, and Nicole Ori a, in her Official Capacity as Executive Director

, Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle:

Pursuant to the Court’s request, this is to confirm my intent to argue on behalf of Appell ants/Cross-Appellees on December 16, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and p lease advise if I may be of further
assistance.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ted A. Ross Ted A. Ross Assistant Attorney General

cc: David Brown ( Via E-Service ) Ryan Clinton ( Via E-Service ) ACCEPTED 03-14-00774-CV 7701600 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/5/2015 1:37:42 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK
#### JOHNSON, Respondent, v. GIRDWOOD, Appellant.

(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.

May 17, 1894.)

Action by Joseph W. Johnson against James Girdwood.

Argued before BOOKSTAVER, BISCHOFF, and PRYOR, JJ.

Jas. Dunne, for appellant.

E. S. Clinch, for respondent.

No opinion. Motion for reargument granted. See 28 N. Y. Supp. 151.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM UNISON'S
UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE 6 MOS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          4,292
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  40,055
<ALLOWANCES>                                    8,120
<INVENTORY>                                     2,185
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               44,895
<PP&E>                                         34,109
<DEPRECIATION>                                  8,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                188,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          36,359
<BONDS>                                       169,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            5
<OTHER-SE>                                    (43,882)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  188,964
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              102,800
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  88,455
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               13,104
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                1,168
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              9,916
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,843)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,843)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,843)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        

</TABLE>
THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS AND DOCUMENTATION

Written by CDR D. Strong

Boating Under the Influence (BUI) is a serious threat to safety on our waterways. 

One of the critical pieces of information from any suspected BUI violation is the 

Field Sobriety Battery Test (FST) worksheet. As Hearing Officers we rely on this 

document to provide the necessary reflection of a mariner’s performance and the 

boarding officer’s observations. Recently we have been seeing an alarming number of 

discrepancies with FST worksheets that potentially could lead to a case file’s 

dismissal or cause it to be returned for correction.

First and foremost, the copies need to be legible and complete. A bad photo copy does 

not get better with age. We have had numerous occasions where critical observation 

information was cut off, the signature block was cut off or the quality of the copy was 

so poor that we were unable to read the information. In addition some cases arrive 

with the front or back page missing. 

Another disturbing trend is missing information from the worksheet. Remember all 

items are on the FST worksheet for a purpose. Initial observations are key factors in 

determining reasonable cause to complete the FSTs and the chemical test. Secondly, 

when completing the chemical test portion, the entire signature block must be filled 

out. The information must include machine serial number, calibration date, BWI 

qualification date for the boarding officer and the witness signature along with the 

actual BAC reading. In the case of a refusal, a witness signature is still necessary.

Attention to these critical details prior to submitting the case for adjudication` will 

assist us in the timely and successful processing of cases and ensure mariners’ are 

provided accurate documentation upon which to exercise their opportunity to 

comment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                            4103
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4103
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    4103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,434,102
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,390
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,435,389)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (1,429,999)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (4,621)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (32,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (37,007)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
Listen

# Testimony of Chair Catherine E. Lhamon before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties

September 24, 2020

Written Submission

-  All News 
-  Commission News 
-  Advisory Committees News 
-  Correspondence 
-  Videos 
-  Archives