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>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,028
<SECURITIES>                                     4,708
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,902
<ALLOWANCES>                                       426
<INVENTORY>                                      2,147
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,321
<PP&E>                                           6,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,315
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,837
<BONDS>                                            329
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,230
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           211
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,116
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,851
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,972
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     5
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,068
<INCOME-TAX>                                       411
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                657
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       657
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 22070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10885]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB review; comment request

April 25, 2001.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before June 1, 2001 to 
be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-0927.
    Form Number: IRS Form 8390.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Information Return for Determination of Life Insurance 
Company Earnings Rate Under Section 809.
    Description: Life insurance companies are required to provide data 
so the Secretary of the Treasury can compute the: (1) Stock earnings 
rate of the 50 largest stock companies; and (2) average mutual earnings 
rate. These factors are used to compute the differential earnings rate 
which will determine the tax liability for mutual life insurance 
companies.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 150.

           Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping.............................  55 hr., 57 min.
Learning about the law or the form........  2 hr., 34 min.
Preparing and sending the form to the IRS.  3 hr., 36 min.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 9,323 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service, Room 
5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Mary A. Able,
Departmental Reports, Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-10885 Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0000215718
<NAME>                         DYCO OIL AND GAS PROGRAM 1978-1

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                              2,459
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      20,310
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   22,769
<PP&E>                         14,966,100
<DEPRECIATION>                 14,844,731
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    155,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               6,518
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                        121,737
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      155,839
<SALES>                           110,217
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  111,165
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      74,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    36,927
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                36,927
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       36,927
<EPS-BASIC>                         15.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of Moyco Technologies, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company each certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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; and

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








/s/ Mark E. Sternberg
---------------------
Mark E. Sternberg
Chief Financial Officer
October 11, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             660
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            17
<OTHER-SE>                                   (161,683)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,181
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   884
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   312
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,316
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,744)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        23
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,767)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,767)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (7.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (7.38)
        


</TABLE>
#### BOOKMAN, Respondent, v. NEW YORK EL. R. CO. et al., Appellants.

(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.

July 2, 1894.)

Action by Jacob *1141Bookman against the New York Elevated Railroad Company and another.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 64 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to repeal the restriction on the 

jurisdiction of courts, justices, and judges to hear or consider applications 

for writs of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of certain aliens detained 

by the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28, United States Code, to repeal the restriction on the jurisdiction of courts, justices, and judges 

to hear or consider applications for writs of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of certain aliens detained by 

the United States. 

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 ‘‘Military Commissions 

5 Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 64 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON HABEAS CORPUS. 

2 (a) REPEAL.—Section 2241 of title 28, United States 

3 Code, is amended by striking subsection (e). 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 99 of title 28, 

6 United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following new section: 

8 ‘‘§ 1632. Jurisdiction to hear actions against the 

9 United States relating to enemy combat10 ants 

11 ‘‘Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of sec12 tion 1005(e) of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (10 

13 U.S.C. 801 note), no court, justice, or judge shall have 

14 jurisdiction to hear or consider any action against the 

15 United States or its agents, other than an application for 

16 a writ of habeas corpus, relating to any aspect of the de17 tention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confine18 ment of an alien who is or was detained by the United 

19 States and has been determined by the United States to 

20 have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or 

21 is awaiting such determination.’’. 

22 (2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sec23 tions at the beginning of such chapter is amended 

24 by adding at the end the following new item: 

‘‘1632. Jurisdiction to hear actions against the United States relating to enemy 

combatants.’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HR 64 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to all cases, without exception, 

3 pending on or after the date of the enactment of the De4 tainee Treatment Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–148; 119 

5 Stat. 2739) which relate to any aspect of the detention, 

6 transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of detention of an 

7 alien detained by the United States since September 11, 

8 2001. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T T I MOT HY B US C H, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. A . P . K A N E ; e t a l., R esp o n d en t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 15225 D . C . N o . 5 : 0 6 -cv -0 6 2 7 1 -JF ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J e r e m yD . F oge l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r19, 2011 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E an dM cK E O W N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C alifo rn ia state p riso n erT im o th y B u sc h ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. B us c h c ont e nds tha tthe B oa r d’ s 2005 de c i s i on t o de nyhi m pa r ol e w a s not s upport e d by“ s om e e vi de nc e ” a nd the r e f or e vi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s . T he



# FI LED DE C 21 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 09- 15225

on l y f eder al ri gh tati ss ue i n the parol e c on t exti s proce du ra l , and the on l y proper i nqui ryi s w ha tpr oc e s s the i nm a t e r e c e i ve d, notw he the rthe s t a t e c ourtde c i de d the c a s e c o rr e c tly . Sw artho utv. C oo ke , 1 3 1 S . C t. 8 5 9 , 8 6 3 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ; R ob er t s v . H art ley , 640 F . 3d 1042, 1045- 47 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ( appl y i ng C oo ke ). B ec ause B usch ra i se s n o p r o c e d u r a l c h a lle n g e s , w e a f f irm . AF F I RME D.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 16-07

IN RE: RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGES

O R D E R

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1), and in order to meet the needs of the Court, recalleligible retired judges John J. Farley, III, and Donald L. Ivers, are recalled, each for a period of 90

days, to perform substantial service to the Court. The Court requires the service of these recalled

judges to assist in reviewing and deciding the unprecedented number of appeals now pending before

the Court. Any service beyond the 90-day period must be with the consent of the recalled judge.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, effective September 4, 2007, John J. Farley, III, and Donald L. Ivers

shall commence service as judges of the Court for a period of 90 days. 

DATED: August 13, 2007 FOR THE COURT:

WILLIAM P. GREENE, JR.

Chief Judge
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2022

- 2551

_____________________________
C LARENCE D UNN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey , Judge

.

November 7, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R AY , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Jasmine Russell Dixon
, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody
, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
FILED

September 30, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

MARCH SESSION, 1997

JOE GLASGOW, JR., ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9603-CC-00092

) 

Appellant, )

) DAVIDSON COUNTY

)

V. )

) HON. WALTER C. KURTZ, JUDGE

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

)

 Appellee. ) (POST-CONVICTION) 

SEPARATE OPINION CONCURRING IN

PART AND DISSENTING IN PART

I concur with Parts I and III of Judge Tipton’s opinion. However, I

must respectfully dissent from Part II of the opinion. 

The trial court was correct in holding that any issue regarding the

merits of the search issue or the effectiveness of Petitioner’s trial counsel has

been previously determined. This fact was acknowledged by the majority

opinion. However, as I understand the majority opinion, Petitioner is still entitled

to again raise these issues by alleging ineffective assistance of counsel who

represented Petitioner in the motion for new trial hearing. Defendant pursued a

course of action which this court has previously observed to be unwise; he chose

to allege ineffective assistance of counsel at trial in his motion for new trial and

in his direct appeal, rather than waiting to file that claim in his first post-conviction

petition. See State v. Joseph Clyde Beard, Jr., No. 03C01-9502-CR-000044,

Sullivan County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Sept. 26, 1996); Kirby George
-2-

Wallace v. State, No. 01C01-9308-CC-00275, Stewart County (Tenn. Crim. App.,

Nashville, Sept. 15, 1994); State v. Jimmy L. Sluder, No. 1236, Knox County

(Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, March 14, 1990).

The Petitioner was given a full opportunity to be heard on the search

issue and the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial. He was

afforded the opportunity to present evidence and argument, and the trial court

determined that the issues were meritless, and this was affirmed upon review in

this court. Thus the ultimate issues, the ineffective assistance of counsel during

the trial and the search issue, have been previously determined. See House v.

State, 911 S.W.2d 705, 710-11 (Tenn. 1995). 

I would affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the petition

for post-conviction relief except insofar as the judgment in State v. Joe Glasgow,

Jr., No. 01-C-01-9102-CC-00082, Davidson County (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 10,

1991) is vacated and reinstated upon date of the filing of the opinion of this court,

in order to afford the Petitioner the opportunity to file for application for

permission to appeal to the supreme court. 

____________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, Judge
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T MODE S T O R AMI R E Z a n dGA B I NA ME ND OZ A, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 72843 A ge nc yN os . A 099- 418- 119

A 096- 304- 950 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** S a n F r an c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M ode s t o R a m i r e z a nd G abi naM e ndoz a , na t i ve s a nd c i t i z e ns of M e xi c o, p e titio n p r o s e f

o rr e v ie w o f

th e d e c is io n o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls 

# FI LED OC T 22 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 72843 2 de ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n, s e e ki ng t o appl yf ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of re m ov al , and rel i ef

un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture. P e t i t i one r s c ont e nd tha tc ountryc ondi t i ons ha ve c hange d i n M e xi c o, a nd thatthey w i l l be pers ec ut ed because they w i l l be perce i ved as w ea l thy and p ot ent i al k i d n ap p i n g v i ct i m s b ecau se th ey are M ex i can s retu rn i n g fro m th e U n i t edS t at es, there by ent i t l i ng them t o asy l um re l i ef . P et i t i on er s f

ai l ed t o est abl i sh changed c o u n tryc o n d itio n s in M e x ic o th a t ar e m a te r ia l to p e titio n e r s a n dth e ir c ir c u m s tan c e s . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; T ou f i gh iv. Mukasey , 538 F . 3d 988, 99 6-97 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). In addi t i on , pet i t i on er s f ai l ed t o est abl i sh thatthey qual i fy a s ac o g n iz ab le s o c ia l g r o up , a n dth e r e f o r e d idn o t d e m o n s tr a te p r im af a c ie e lig ib ilityf

o ra s y lu m ,. See D el

ga do -O rt i

z v . H older , 6 0 0 F .3 d1 1 4 8 , 1 1 5 1 - 5 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2010) ( r e

j e c t i ng a s apa rt i c ul ars oc i a l gr oup “ r e turni ng M e xi c ans f r om the U n ite dS ta te s ” ) . PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .
Ryder Scott Company
Petroleum Consultants

1100 Louisiana                                              Fax (713) 651-0849
Suite 3800
Houston, TX  77002-5218                               Telephone (713) 651-9191






                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM CONSULTING FIRM




      We consent to the  reference to our name included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for  the  year  ended December  31, 2001 for  Dyco Oil and Gas Program
1978-1 Limited Partnership.


                              //s// Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

                              RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.




Houston, Texas
March 8, 2002