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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000850625
<NAME> CHRISKEN GROWTH & INCOME L.P. II
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         110,441
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,373
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               193,938
<PP&E>                                       5,494,570
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,688,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          200,432
<BONDS>                                      3,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,488,076
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,688,508
<SALES>                                        939,836
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,003,150
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  612,440
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             174,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                216,335
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            216,335
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   216,335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    16.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    16.89
        

</TABLE>
## NUMBER 13
- 20
- 00 411
- CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

TATIANA LEONARD , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 214t h District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## ORDER OF ABATEMENT Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Silva Order Per Curiam

Th is cause is before the Court on its own motion. A ppellant has been granted two
extensions and appellant’s brief was due on March 18, 2021

. On March 22, 2021 , the Clerk of the Court, sen t the Honorable Coretta T. Graham notice that the brief wa s past
due . To date, we have not received a brief or response.2 Accordingly, we now ABATE this appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) and (3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. Upon remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make appropriate findings and recommendati ons concerning the following: (1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; (2) why appellant's counsel has failed to file a brief and whether counsel has effectively abandoned the appeal; (3) whether appellant
has been denied effective assistanc e of counsel; (4) whether appellant's counsel should be removed; and (5) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to court

- appointed counsel. If the trial court determines that appellant does want to continue the appeal, that present counsel should be re moved, and that appellant is indigent and entitled to
court

- appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint new counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, telephone number, email
address and state bar nu mber of said counsel shall be included in an order. The trial court shall cause its findings and order, if any , to be included in a supplemental clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental reporter's record , if any , shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of this order.
It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM Do not publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered and filed on the 16th day of April , 20 21

.
cc: Hon. William S. Potter, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Kelly Aherns 

Dale Aherns 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) I947A
Theresa A. JOHNSON, petitioner, v. BEACH PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT.

No. 16-5957.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31951-31952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14871]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, 
Washington, DC 20549.
    Extension: Rule 11Ac1-4, SEC File No. 270-405, OMB Control No. 
3235-0462
    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 11Ac1-4 [17 C.F.R. 240.11Ac1-4] under the Securities Exchange 
Act of 1934 requires specialists and market makers to publicly display 
a customer

[[Page 31952]]

limit order when that limit order is priced superior to the quote that 
is currently being displayed by the specialist or market maker. 
Customer limit orders that match the bid or offer being displayed by 
the specialist or market maker must also be displayed if the limit 
order price matches the national best bid or offer. It is estimated 
that approximately 926 broker and dealer respondents incur an aggregate 
burden of 9,056 hours per year to comply with this rule.
    Rule 11Ac1-4 does not contain record retention requirements. 
Compliance with the rule is mandatory. Responses are not confidential. 
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on respondents, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in 
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Direct your written comments to Michael E. Bartell, Associate 
Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.

    Dated: June 6, 2001.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14871 Filed 6-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

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

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

 April 28, 2014

d0421

Order 

Clerk

April 28, 2014

148540

IDA TOWNSHIP,

Plaintiff/Counter- Defendant-Appellee,

v SC: 148540

COA: 303595

Monroe CC: 09-027194-CZ

SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN MOTORSPORTS,

LLC, DARRIN FELKEY, and CHARLES

MUDGE,

Defendants/Counter- Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

and

IDA TOWNSHIP PLANNING COMMISSION,

Counter-Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 3, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Farris Genner MORRIS, petitioner, v. David Bruce WESTBROOKS, Warden.

No. 15-9002.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Pablo F. MALDONADO, petitioner, v. Corporal JEFFERSON, et al.

No. 16-6172.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Scott D. O’Malia (202) 418-5870 

Commissioner (202) 418-5550 Facsimile 

 somalia@cftc.gov 

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre,1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581 

www.cftc.gov

Agenda for August 5, 2011 

Meeting of the Data Standardization Subcommittee of the CFTC’s 

Technology Advisory Committee 

1:00 Introduction and Opening Statements by Commissioner O’Malia, the chairman of the 

Technology Advisory Committee (TAC), and Andrei Kirilenko, the chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Data Standardization of the TAC 

1:15 Subcommittee Member Introductions 

1:45 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Overview from Nancy Doyle, Office of 

General Counsel 

2:00 Brief guidance on the anticipated structure of work processes within Working Groups 

of the Subcommittee by Andrei Kirilenko 

2:15 Working Groups Breakout Session I (Content: discussion on refinement of main issues, 

specific projects, sequencing) 

3:00 Break 

3:15 Working Groups Breakout Session II (continued discussion of agenda, logistics, 

deliverables) 

4:00 Break 

4:15 Discussion in Subcommittee of Working Groups’ early thoughts on main issues and 

goals 

5:00 Closing Remarks by Commissioner O’Malia and Andrei Kirilenko
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15421]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1166]

Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 138 Columbus, Ohio Area

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Rickenbacker Port Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade 
Zone No. 138, submitted an application to the Board for authority to 
expand FTZ 138 in the Columbus, Ohio area, adjacent to the Columbus 
Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 31-2000, filed 6/20/2000);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 39866, 6/28/2000) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 138 is approved, subject to the Act 
and the Board's regulations, including section 400.28, and further 
subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 2001.
Faryar Shirzad,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15421 Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
Wenfo SONG, petitioner, v. Barack H. OBAMA, President of the United States.

No. 16-6202.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Giray BIYIKLIOGLU, aka Johnny Bryan, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6465.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DARRYL JONES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 205 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DARRYL JONES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 206 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

# AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Federal Salary Council will meet at the time and location shown below. The Council is an advisory body composed of representatives of Federal employee organizations and experts in the fields of labor relations or pay policy. A provision of law enacted in 2000 requires the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management) to determine whether five additional metropolitan areas (Austin, TX, Las Vegas, NV, Louisville, KY, Nashville, TN, and Raleigh, NC) should become separate locality pay areas under the locality pay program for General Schedules employees in 2002. The law authorizes the required determinations to be made by using salary surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, salary survey data compiled by organizations or entities for private sector businesses, or a combination of these data sources. The Federal Salary Council will review the results of special studies directed by the Office of Personnel Management and develop recommendations for the Pay Agent on locality pay methodology as it pertains to the five metropolitan areas. The Pay Agent will submit a report to Congress later this year. The meeting is open to the public.

# DATES:

July 23, 2001, at 9:30 a.m.

*Location:*                         Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 5303 (Pendleton Room), Washington, DC.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Winstead, Associate Director for Compensation Administration, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 7H31, Washington, DC 20415-8200. Phone (202) 606-2838; FAX (202) 606-0824; or email at payleave@opm.gov.

For the President's Pay Agent.

Steven R. Cohen, 

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 01-15354 Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325-01-P
1

Filed 9/11/19

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SOCORRO SUSAN CARO,

Defendant and Appellant.

S106274

Ventura County Superior Court

CR47813

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND 

DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARAING

THE COURT:

The opinion in this matter, which was filed June 13, 2019, 

appearing at 7 Cal.5th 463, is modified as follows:

1. The second sentence of the second full paragraph on page 475, 

beginning “Defense expert” is modified to read:

Defense expert Herbert MacDonell reviewed the forensic 

evidence. 

2. The fifth sentence of the second full paragraph on page 475, 

beginning “MacDonnell found” is modified to read:

MacDonell found transfer stains on Xavier’s jacket, socks, 

and pants.
2

3. The eighth sentence of the third full paragraph spanning pages 

477 and 478, beginning “He diagnosed” is modified to read:

She diagnosed Caro with chronic depression accompanied by 

mood congruent psychotic features, alcohol dependence, 

alcohol abuse, and a dependent personality.

4. The fourth and fifth sentences of the first full paragraph on 

page 504, beginning “Defense counsel asked” is modified to read:

Defense counsel asked if that was the first time Jones had 

examined the underwear, and he replied that he examined 

it “on a date earlier than that when other examiners were 

looking at [it],” those other examiners being “Richard Fox or 

Herb MacDonell. One of those two or both.” 

These modifications do not affect the judgment. 

The petition for rehearing is denied.
## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint Petition of
TONY LEWIS LEAGUE ,

Petitioner. No. 54575

- 6

- II UNPUBLISHED OPINION

W ORSWICK , J.

— Tony League seeks relief from perso nal restraint imposed as a result of his 2016 convictions for second degree assault while armed with a firearm, first degree unlawful possession of a firearm , and three counts of gross misdemeanor violation of a domestic violence no

- contact order

. 1 First , he argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed first degree unlawful possession of a firearm because the State did not prove that he possessed a firearm. Second, he argues that the evidence was insuffici ent to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was armed with a firearm when he co mmitted second degree assault. Evidence is sufficient if, after viewing it in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essentia l elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Salinas , 119 Wn.2d 192, 201, 829 P.2d 1068 (1992). Credibility determinations are not subject to review. State v. Camarillo , 115 Wn.2d 60, 71, 794 P.2d 850 (1990).

1 L eague pleaded not guilty and claims that the evidence against him was insufficient

. T h ose claims exempt his petition from the one

- year time bar. RCW 10.73.100(4 ). His direct appeal was dismissed as untimely filed. Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two July 28, 20205 4575

- 6

- II

2 At trial, Briana Guill testi fied that during an argument, League pulled a gun out of

a holster and pointed it at her midsection. She testified that she felt her safety was in danger when League pointed the gun at her. A citizen found a loaded gun near where League had pointed the g un at Guill. Police test fired the firearm. From photos of that firearm, Guill testified that it appeared to be the gun that League pointed at her. When contacted by the police, League had a holster in his sweatshirt pocket

. Taken in the light most fav orable to the State, this evidence is sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that he was in possession of the firearm and that he was armed with a firearm when he assaulted Guill. League does not show that he is entitled to relief from restraint. We therefore deny his p etition and his request for appointment of counsel

. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2 .06.040, it is so ordered.

_________________________ Worswick, P.J.

__________________________ Glasgow, J.

__________________________ Cruser, J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Desmond Tapper, Appellant.

[883 NYS2d 250]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered November 21, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and unlawful wearing of a body vest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly granted the People’s *reverse-Batson*challenge *(see Batson v Kentucky,*476 US 79 [1986]; *People v Luciano,*10 NY3d *621499, 502-503 [2008]). The trial court’s determination that the proffered reason for challenging the juror in question, that she had previously served on a jury, was pretextual, is entitled to great deference and is supported by the record *(see People v Quito,*43 AD3d 411, 412-413 [2007]; *People v Richie,*217 AD2d 84, 89 [1995]).

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s challenge for cause to a potential juror *(see People v Franklin,*7 AD3d 966, 967 [2004]). Even if a prima facie showing of actual bias had been made *(see People v Torpey,*63 NY2d 361, 367 [1984]), her unequivocal answers demonstrated that she could be fair and impartial *(see People v Chambers,*97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; *People v Johnson,*278 AD2d 245 [2000]).

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor violated the unsworn witness rule during the prosecutor’s cross-examination of him and during summation is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit *(see People v Paperno,*54 NY2d 294, 302 [1981]; *People v Rivera,*27 AD3d 491, 492 [2006]; *People v Blackwood,*295 AD2d 292, 293 [2002]).

The defendant’s challenge to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Hollenquest,*48 AD3d 592, 593 [2008]). In any event, the remarks either were fair comment, were within the permissible bounds of rhetorical comment, or do not warrant reversal *(see People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 401 [1981]; *People v Wright,*40 AD3d 1021 [2007]; *People v Heide,*206 AD2d 875 [1994], *affd*84 NY2d 943 [1994]).

On this record, we cannot conclude that the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel *(see Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]; *People v Steele,*135 AD2d 673 [1987]). Rivera, J.P, Spolzino, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the periodic report of PLXTechnology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Michael J. Salameh,****Chief Executive Officer****of theCompany, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of myknowledge:

the Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and 

the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.  

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed,"filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: November 4, 2004
                          /s/ Michael J.Salameh	 
Michael J. Salameh, Chief Executive Officer