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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED NOVEMBER 29, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-29-1996
<CASH>                                           9,073
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   86,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,069
<INVENTORY>                                    137,368
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               234,247
<PP&E>                                         434,919
<DEPRECIATION>                                 200,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 488,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           93,577
<BONDS>                                        299,775
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,620
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   488,250
<SALES>                                        254,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               254,064
<CGS>                                          218,303
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  240,052
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,559
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   369
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,955
<INCOME-TAX>                                       784
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,171
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,171
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                 Exhibit 23.1
                                 ------------

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report included in this Form 10-K, into Charles E. Smith
Residential Realty, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statement File No.
33-82382, Registration Statement File No. 33-93986, Registration Statement File
No. 33-80835, Registration Statement File No. 333-340, Registration Statement
File No. 333-8129, Registration Statement File No. 333-17053, Registration
Statement File No. 333-39513, Registration Statement File No. 333-39691,
Registration Statement File No. 333-66669, Registration Statement File No.
333-61405, Registration Statement File No. 333-66083, Registration Statement
File No. 333-70611, Registration Statement File No. 333-67421, Registration
Statement File No. 333-82861, Registration Statement File No. 333-93159,
Registration Statement File No. 333-93541, Registration Statement File No.
333-94881, Registration Statement File No. 33-75288, Registration Statement File
No. 333-34218, Registration Statement File No. 333-41456, Registration Statement
File No. 333-41586, Registration Statement File No. 333-43608, and Registration
Statement File No. 333-41588.


                                                        /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Vienna, Virginia
March 20, 2001

                                      E-5
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 2, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41153 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ALFREDO AREVALO-LOZANO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:04-CR-277-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Alfredo Arevalo-Lozano (“Arevalo”) appeals his conviction and the 63-month sentence he received for his conviction on his guilty plea to a charge of illegal re-entry to the United States, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Arevalo’s constitutional challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1326 is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Arevalo contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme CourtNo. 04-41153 -2- would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Arevalo properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. Accordingly, Arevalo’s conviction is AFFIRMED. Arevalo contends that his sentence must be vacated because he was sentenced pursuant to mandatory sentencing guidelines that were held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). He asserts that the error in his case is reversible because the error is structural and is insusceptible of harmless error analysis. Contrary to Arevalo’s contention, we have previously rejected this specific argument. See United States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463 (5th Cir. 2005). In the alternative, Arevalo contends that the Government cannot show that the error that occurred at his sentencing was harmless. We review Arevalo’s preserved challenge to his
sentence for harmless error under F ED . R. C RIM . P. 52(a). See Walters , 418 F.3d at 463. Arevalo was sentenced at the bottom of the guideline range, and the district court stated that Arevalo’s sentence seemed lengthy for his crime. The record provides no indication, and the Government has not shown, that the district court would notNo. 04-41153 -3- have sentenced Arevalo differently under an advisory guidelines system. See United States v. Garza , 429 F.3d 165, 170-71 (5th Cir. 2005) . Accordingly, Arevalo’s sentence is VACATED, and his case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED.
John HURRY, et al., Petitioners, v. FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY, INC., et al.

No. 19-643.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Tarvis M. WILSON, Petitioner, v. Mark S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 19-7717.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 20, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
Terry Alfred COXE, petitioner, v. Daniel WHITE, Superintendent, Washington State Corrections Center.

No. 18-6326.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 10.1****THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**          THIRD AMENDMENT dated as of July 29, 2005 (this “Amendment”) to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT dated asof February 27, 2003, as amended (the “Agreement”) by and between TRW Limited (the “Company”) andPeter J. Lake (“Executive”).          WHEREAS, in order to extend the term of the Agreement, Executive and Company desire to amendthe Agreement as set forth below;          In consideration of the premises and mutual covenants herein, the parties agree as follows:          1. Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used herein but not defined shall have themeanings assigned to them in the Agreement.          2. Amendment to Section 1.b. of the Agreement. Section 1.b. of the Agreement shall beamended in its entirety to read as follows:b. Subject to the provisions of Section 7 of this Agreement, Executive shallbe employed by the Company for a period commencing on the Effective Date andending on December 31, 2008 (the “Employment Term”) on the terms and subjectto the conditions set forth in this Agreement; provided, however,that commencing with January 1, 2009 and on each January 1 thereafter (eachan “Extension Date”), the Employment Term shall be automatically extendedfor an additional one-year period, unless the Company or Executive providesthe other party hereto 60 days prior written notice before the nextExtension Date that the Employment Term shall not be so extended.          3. No Other Amendments; Effectiveness. Except as set forth in this Amendment, theAgreement is ratified and confirmed in all respects. This Amendment shall be effective as of thedate hereof.          4. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordancewith the laws of the State of New York, without regard to conflicts of laws principles thereof.          5. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall bean original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the sameinstrument.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the day andyear first above written.   TRW Limited Peter J. Lake   /s/ David L. Bialosky /s/ Peter J. Lake   By: David L. Bialosky
Robert K. ZABKA, et ux., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 19-1178.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 26, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Presidential Documents

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 111 / Thursday, June 9, 2022 / Presidential Documents 35081 

Memorandum of June 1, 2022 

Delegation of Authority Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

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

laws of the United States of America, including section 621 of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State 

the authority under section 506(a)(1) of the FAA to direct the drawdown 

of up to an aggregate value of $700 million in defense articles and services 

of the Department of Defense, and military education and training, to provide 

assistance to Ukraine and to make the determinations required under such 

section to direct such a drawdown. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, June 1, 2022 

[FR Doc. 2022–12557 

Filed 6–8–22; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_PREZDOC6BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
Kevin C. ROTKISKE, petitioner, v. Paul KLEMM, et al.

No. 18-328.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 23, 2019.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Annual
Report for the fiscal year ended June 29, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-29-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.0
<CASH>                                              58
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      720
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     14,817
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,794
<PP&E>                                           6,136
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,995
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,098
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,714
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        14,985
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,098
<SALES>                                         51,285
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,285
<CGS>                                           30,965
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 220
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,025)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (410)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (615)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.19)
        

</TABLE>
Rostislav KHRAPKO, Petitioner, v. Kristin SPLAIN, et al.

No. 19-1041.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY, Petitioner, v. BENNETT REGULATOR GUARDS, INC.

No. 18-999.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 27, 2020

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further consideration in light of *Thryv, Inc.* v. *Click-to-Call Technologies, LP* , 590 U.S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 1367, 206 L.Ed.2d 554 (2020).
Casey Lee JONES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7201

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32.a



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BCTC V Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



|            |  |                            
|----------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date:       |  |                            
|May 4, 2011 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|            |  |                            
|            |  | John P. Manning            
|            |  | Principal Executive Officer
|            |  |                            
|            |  |                            



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Bernard Roosevelt SHAW, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-9258

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
Omar N. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. Steven JOHNSON, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

No. 19-7948.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 4, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
1

SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L.

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A, Boca Raton, FL 33433 • Tel (561) 807-7388 • Fax (561) 807-7198

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ANTHONY CAIRNS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION

vs. )

) Case No. 4:24-CV-00084

WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC, )

)

Defendant. )

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff, ANTHONY CAIRNS (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel and 

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby provides this 

Notice to the Court and to all relevant parties of Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of Defendant, 

WOODMONT INVESTMENTS, LLC and this entire action, with Prejudice.

Respectfully submitted this 9

th day of April, 2024.

Law Offices of

THE SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L.

/s/ Douglas S. Schapiro

Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq.

State Bar No. 54538FL

The Schapiro Law Group, P.L.

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A

Boca Raton, FL 33433

Tel: (561) 807-7388

Email: schapiro@schapirolawgroup.com

Case 4:24-cv-00084-ALM Document 6 Filed 04/09/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 33
2

SCHAPIRO LAW GROUP, P.L.

7301-A W. Palmetto Park Rd., #100A, Boca Raton, FL 33433 • Tel (561) 807-7388 • Fax (561) 807-7198

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the 

Court’s CM/ECF system on April 9, 2024 upon all counsel or parties.

/s/ Douglas S. Schapiro

Douglas S. Schapiro, Esq.

State Bar No. 54538FL

Case 4:24-cv-00084-ALM Document 6 Filed 04/09/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 34
# C_2017384EN.01001301.xml

| 14.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/13

---

SINGLE RESOLUTION BOARD

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2016

(2017/C 384/48)

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

https://srb.europa.eu/en/mission

---
Adrian MOON, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 19-5044

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See *Martin* v. *District of Columbia Court of Appeals* , 506 U.S. 1, 113 S.Ct. 397, 121 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (*per curiam* ).
# C_2018029EN.01000102.xml

| 26.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 29/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 29/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8686 — Bunge/IOI/Loders)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 29/02)

On 18 January 2018, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8686. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32018M8686. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 01/29/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       46,096
COMMITMENTS
     952    7,848    2,513   41,841   34,688   45,306   45,049      790    1,047

CHANGES FROM 01/22/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -2,196)
  -1,674   -6,297      826   -1,530    2,751   -2,378   -2,720      182      524

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     2.1     17.0      5.5     90.8     75.3     98.3     97.7      1.7      2.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       40)
       4        7        8       23       21       32       31`

---

Updated February 1, 2013
Ray A. SMITH, Petitioner, v. John CHAPDELAINE, Warden, et al.

No. 19-6427.

Supreme Court of the United States.

April 6, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.