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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,126
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                       482
<INVENTORY>                                     49,143
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               104,279
<PP&E>                                         108,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,519
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 182,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,976
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           163
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,004
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   182,482
<SALES>                                         67,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,049
<CGS>                                           57,862
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,780
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,015
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,392
<INCOME-TAX>                                       861
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,531
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,531
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
# FCM DATA APRIL 2008
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed October 1, 2013. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01099

- CV

THERESA BARNETT , Appellant V. DAVID S. CROCKETT, E T AL. , Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10

- 00136

- F



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang

- Miers, and Evans Opinion Per Curiam The Court has before it appellees’ August 28, 2013 motion to dismiss and appellant’s
September 6, 2013 response to that motion. On September 9, 2013, this Court denied appellant’s
motion for damages and invited appellant to file an additional response to the motion to dismiss.
Appellant filed three additional responses , but did not respond to appellees’ argument that
appellant is attempting to appeal an interlocutory sanctions order. This Court does not have
jurisdiction over such an order. See Petito v. Energytec, Inc. , No. 05

- 09

- 00140

- CV, 2009 WL

1286330 at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas May 11, 2009, no pet.). Accordingly, we DISMISS this
appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

131099F.P05– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

THERESA BARNETT, Appellant

No. 05

- 13

- 01099

- CV V.

DAVID S. CROCKETT, ET AL., Appellees On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10

- 00136

- F. Opinion delivered Per Curiam. Justices O'Neill, Lang

- Miers and Evans sitting for the Court.

In accord ance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. It is ORDERED that appellees DAVID S. CROCKETT, ET AL. recover their costs of this appeal from appellant THERESA BARNETT.

Judgment entered this 1 st day of Oct ober, 2013.

/Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31628-31629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14691]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-439-000]


Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

June 6, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 31, 2001 Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company 
(Eastern Shore) tendered for filing its annual Fuel Retention 
Adjustment filing pursunat to Section No. 1.
    Eastern Shore states that Section 31, ``Fuel Retention 
Adjustment'', specifies that with no less than thirty (30) days prior 
notice, Eastern Shore shall file with the Commission revised tariff 
sheets containing a re-determined Fuel Retention Percentage (``FRP'') 
for affected transportation rate schedules to be effective July 1 of 
each year. Such FRP is designed to reimburse Eastern Shore for the cost 
of its Gas Required for Operations (``GRO'') which consists of (a) gas 
used for compressor fuel and (b) gas otherwise used, lost or 
unaccounted for, in its operations. Eastern Shore's FRP is calculated 
by determining the GRO quantities attributable to system-wide 
operations for the affected transportation rate schedules using the 
last twelve (12) month period for which actual data is available and 
then dividing such quantity by the transportation quantities received 
by Eastern Shore for the corresponding twelve (12) month period.
    Eastern Shore states that as shown in its filing, Eastern Shore's 
calculated FRP is .38%, an increase of .28% from the current FRP in 
effect.
    Eastern Shore states that copies of its filing has been mailed to 
its customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections

[[Page 31629]]

385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such 
motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Sections 154.210 
of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room. Ths filing may be 
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-
208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be 
filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14691 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SY B. GAIBER & CO., SY B. GAIBER, AND MICHAEL R. HEMPEL 

DOCKET NUMBER: 165 

DATE: APRIL 28, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: STAY ORDER AND EXTENSION OF TIME 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Sy B. Gaiber & Co., Sy B. Gaiber, and Michael R. Hempel, Respondents 

CEA Docket No. 165 

Stay Order and Extension of Time 

Pursuant to telephone request, on April 28, 1972, by counsel for respondents, 

the time for filing a petition for reconsideration in this proceeding is 

extended to and includes May 29, 1972. 

In view of the request, the denial of trading privileges to the respondents 

is hereby stayed pending the outcome of the petition for reconsideration. 

However, the cease and desist provisions of the order of April 12, 1972, shall 

remain in effect. 

Done at Washington, D. C., 

April 28, 1972 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Donald A. Campbell 

Judicial Officer 

Office of the Secretary 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lucio SANTILLAN-GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-40456

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Philip G. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lucio Santillan-Garza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Santillan-Garza has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                            EXHIBIT  11.1

                                GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.
                                  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                              (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<CAPTION>
                                                                    THREE               NINE
                                                                MONTHS ENDED        MONTHS ENDED
                                                                SEPTEMBER 30,       SEPTEMBER 30,  
                                                             ------------------  ------------------
                                                               1996      1995      1996      1995  
                                                             --------  --------  --------   --------
<S>                                                          <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>
Net income (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $    703  $  1,726  $ (2,525)  $(2,971)
                                                             --------  --------  --------   --------

Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding . . . .     6,701     6,609     6,685     6,594

Weighted average effect of common share equivalents . . . .       359        17         -         -
                                                             --------  --------  --------   --------

Weighted average shares outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . .     7,060     6,626     6,685     6,599
                                                             --------  --------  --------   --------

Net income (loss) per common share and common share
  equivalent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $   0.10  $   0.26  $  (0.38)  $ (0.45)
                                                             ========  ========  ========   ========


























                                               - 19 -
</TABLE>
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: JOHN S. MORRIS, EVERETT E. KLIPP AND JOHN S. MORRIS AND CO., INC. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 205 

DATE: FEBRUARY 18, 1975 

DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: John S. Morris, Everett E. Klipp and John S. Morris and Co., Inc., 

Respondents 

CEA Docket No. 205 

Notice of Effective Date of Decision 

The attached Decision which was issued on January 9, 1975, and the Addendum 

to Decision and Order issued on January 10, 1975, in this proceeding by 

Administrative Law Judge Dorothea A. Baker has not been appealed to the 

Secretary within the allotted time. 

In accordance with the applicable rules of practice the Decision became final 

on February 17, 1975. 

Dated: February 18, 1975 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Eugene R. Meyer 

Hearing Clerk 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
### Court of Appeals, State of Michigan ORDER In re Richard Liba Revocable Living Trust Docket No. 338049 LC No. 2016

- 221655-TV Colleen A . O 'Brien Presiding Judge Patrick M . Meter Michael J. Riordan

Judges The Court orders that the July 17 , 2018 opinion is hereby AMENDED. The opinion contained the following clerical error : David F. Zak, Trustee should be corrected in the caption of the opinion to read Dennis F. Zak , Trustee. In all other respects , the July 17, 2018 opinion remain s unchanged.

A tru e cop y e nte r ed and certifi e d by Je rome W . Z immer Jr. , C hi ef C le rk , on 

# JUL 

# 1 9 2018 Date
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DANIEL A. DE LATTRE 

DOCKET NUMBER: 122 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington 25, D. C. 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 122 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Daniel A. de Lattre 

(Chicago, Illinois) 

The complaint charges that the respondent, by commingling funds belonging to 

a customer with his own, failed to handle money received from the customer as 

required by the act and regulations. It also charges that he failed to account 

separately for such money and failed to comply with the recordkeeping 

requirements of the act and regulations. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, November 18, 1964, in Chicago, Illinois. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
**Fidelity® Select Portfolios®**

Information Technology Sector

**Fund**/Ticker

**IT Services Portfolio**/FBSOX

**Summary Prospectus**

**April 29, 2015**

**As Revised October 16, 2015**
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: RUBIN EHRLICH 

DOCKET NUMBER: 126 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 126 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Rubin Ehrlich 

(New York, New York) 

The complaint charges that the respondent, while a registered floor broker 

under the Commodity Exchange Act and President of All State Commodity Traders, 

Inc., a registered futures commission merchant, cheated, defrauded and deceived 

his customers. The complaint alleges that the respondent followed the practice 

of usually taking the better executions into his own account to the disadvantage 

of his customers. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, May 25, 1965, in New York, New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,131
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,763)
<INVENTORY>                                     27,822
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               137,722
<PP&E>                                          22,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (10,350)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,675
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,554
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,681
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,635
<SALES>                                        274,309
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               274,309
<CGS>                                          251,991
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,673
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   202
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (733)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,824)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,824)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,824)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.20)



</TABLE>
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: DECATUR COTTON OIL CO. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 123 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA DOCKET NO. 123 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Decatur Cotton Oil Co. 

(Decatur, Alabama) 

The complaint charges that the respondent failed and refused to file reports 

with the Commodity Exchange Authority concerning its transactions and positions 

in cottonseed oil futures on seven days during the period from September 15, 

1964, through October 1, 1964. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, February 10, 1965, in Decatur, Alabama. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
Exhibit 31.1
       a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;
 b.
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;
 c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and
 d.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 b.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ JAMES J. LETOJames J. LetoChief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0 569 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ZACARIAS WAYNE RAGSDALE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 1 4, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 8 2023

03/08/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0569
**Supplement to Fidelity's Targeted International**
Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the amended quarterly report of SiriCOMM, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2005 (the "Report"),
I, J. Richard Iler, Chief Financial 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:

         (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/ J. Richard Iler
-------------------------
J. Richard Iler
Chief Financial Officer
November 1, 2005


A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.