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 OF AVONDALE INCORPORATED FOR THE TWENTY-SIX 
WEEKS ENDED FEBRUARY 26, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO 
SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-26-1999
<CASH>                                           5,424
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,642
<INVENTORY>                                    138,588
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,183
<PP&E>                                         546,973
<DEPRECIATION>                                (288,062)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 479,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,606
<BONDS>                                        267,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           127
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   479,940
<SALES>                                        430,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               430,028
<CGS>                                          366,084
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  407,112
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,401
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   607
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,066
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,160
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,906
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,906
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
        

</TABLE>
Rebekah GEE, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Petitioner v. JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L.L.C., et al.

No. 18-1460

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Motion of petitioner to file the joint appendix pursuant to Rule 33.2 with one volume under seal granted.
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of G & L Realty Corp. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David E. Hamer, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 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 financialcondition and result of operations of the Company.

|   |                     |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | /s/ DAVID E. HAMER       |
|   |                          |
|   | David E. Hamer           |
|   | Chief Accounting Officer |
|   | August 14, 2003          |
Edwin P. GANT, Petitioner, v. U.S. BANK TRUST, et al.

No. 19-6140

Supreme Court of the United States.

Nov. 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
Larael OWENS, Petitioner v. Tamesha SADDLERS, et al.;

Larael Owens, Petitioner v. Tamesha Saddlers, et al.;

Larael Owens, Petitioner v. Tamesha Saddlers, et al.

No. 19-5713

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District denied.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60706

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RANDALL ADAMS, also known as Wild Man,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CR-15-ALL-WS

April 23, 1998

Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:

Randa ll Adams appeals his jury convictions for distributing

cocaine and “crack” cocaine base. Our review of the record and the

arguments and authorities convince us that no reversible error was

committed.

The argument to the weight of the evidence is meritless.

United States v. Resio-Trejo

, 45 F.3d 907, 910-11 (5th Cir. 1995).2

The district court’s fi nding that the actions depicted on the

videotape were not coerced is not clearly erroneous. U nited States

v. Gonzales , 79 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S.Ct.

183 (1996); United States v. Authement

, 607 F.2d 1129, 1131 (5th

Cir. 1979). The prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s remarks, if

any, was not of great magnitude in the context of the entire trial.

United States v. Wallace , 32 F.3d 921, 926 (5th Cir. 1994). The

r emarks did not constitute a constructive amendment of th e

indictment. The evidence established that the substance was

“crack” cocaine base. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), (n.D); U nited States v.

Metcalf

, 898 F.2d 43, 46 (5th Cir. 1990). We have determined that

the sentencing disparity between cocaine and “crack” cocaine base

is not unconstitutional. S ee, e.g., United States v. Buchanan

, 70

F.3d 818, 828 n.9 (5th Cir. 1995) (equal pr otection challenge),

cert. denied

, 517 U.S. 1114, 1126 (1996); United States v. Cherry

,

50 F.3d 338, 342-44 (5th Cir. 1995) (equal protection challenge);

United States v. Fisher , 22 F.3d 574, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1994) (due

process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment challenges). Only

the court sitting en banc can reverse this precedent. U nited

States v. Mathena , 23 F.3d 87, 91 (5th Cir. 1994).

A claim for time served prior to the date of a federal

sentence must ordinarily proceed via a petition for habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. U nited States v. Mares

, 868 F.2d 151, 151

(5th Cir. 1989). However, for reasons of judicial economy, the

court may address the question on the merits. I d

. Adams’

unsupported allegation that his arrest was part of “one big3

investigation” is unconvincing. Adams is not entitled to credit

for time served in state custody between state arrest on an

u nrelated charge and his release to federal authorities. U nited

States v. Garcia-Gutierrez , 835 F.2d 585, 586 (5th Cir. 1988).

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the ____________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-00078-JRG

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

2/6/2024

Case 2:24-cv-00078-JRG Document 5 Filed 02/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 67
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) . I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

Other (specify):

. My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 2:24-cv-00078-JRG Document 5 Filed 02/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 68
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00267

- CV

P AIGE A. K ESTER

, Appellant

V

.

S TATE F ARM L LOYDS , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 153rd District Court

of Tarrant C o unty ( 153

- 329343

- 21 )

July 6, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the trial court’s judgment

is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Paige A. Kester must pay all costs of this

appeal.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By __ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

_________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 103 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 103

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 2014

  Ms. Norton submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR D.C. SPECIAL 
              OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN.

    On October 3, 2014, or on such other date as the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration 
of the Senate may jointly designate, the 29th annual District of 
Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution 
referred to as the ``event'') may be run through the Capitol Grounds to 
carry the Special Olympics torch to honor local Special Olympics 
athletes.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.
                                 <all>
```
Staci HARRINGTON, et al., Petitioners v. Andrew M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security

No. 18-1534

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Danny HERRERA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9244

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of *United States* v. *Davis* , 588 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 2319, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019).
Fernando JUAREZ, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 19-298

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of BCTC V Assignor Corp. (the "Assignor");
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. 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;
2. 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
3. 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. 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
2. 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.



|March 10, 2005 | /s/ Marc N. Teal                                    
|-------------- | ----------------------------------------------------
|               | Marc N. Teal                                        
|               | (Principal Financial Officer), BCTC V Assignor Corp.
|               |
ARMAMENT SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, et al.

No. 18-1561

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
William Maurice SMITH, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9431

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Joseph SIGNORE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6089

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
El-Sayyid NOSAIR, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 18-9111

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Motion for leave to file petition for rehearing denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 101 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 101

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  limit the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may 
                                 serve.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 30, 2013

   Mr. Palazzo introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  limit the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may 
                                 serve.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. No person who has been a Senator for two consecutive 
terms shall again be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate 
until the date that is one year after the end of such second 
consecutive term.
    ``Section 2. No person who has been a Representative for six 
consecutive terms shall again be eligible for election to the House of 
Representatives until the date that is one year after the end of the 
sixth consecutive term.
    ``Section 3. For purposes of this article, any term a person serves 
as a Senator or Representative to fill a vacancy shall not be included 
in determining the number of consecutive terms that the person has been 
a Senator or Representative unless the period of time for which the 
person fills the vacancy is greater than three years in the case of a 
Senator or greater than one year in the case of a Representative.
    ``Section 4. For the purposes of this article, any term that began 
before the date of the ratification of this article shall not be 
included in determining the number of consecutive terms that a person 
has been a Senator or Representative.''.
                                 <all>
```
Hasim MUNIR, Petitioner, v. RHODE ISLAND.

No. 19-5527

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island denied.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 6
<CIK> 0000797480
<NAME> SMITH BARNEY SECTOR SERIES
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER>004
   <NAME>SMITH BARNEY TECHNOLOGY FUND

<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              8 Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   OCT-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                        OCT-31-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>              215,509,075
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>             185,478,850
<RECEIVABLES>                        4,260,885
<ASSETS-OTHER>                               0
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                       837
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     189,740,572
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>               770,509
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                      0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                    770,509
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                              0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>           234,543,927
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                5,072,866
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                        0
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                    0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>              (2,200,142)
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>            (13,908,721)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                     0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>           (30,030,225)
<NET-ASSETS>                       188,404,839
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                       94,516
<INTEREST-INCOME>                      146,462
<OTHER-INCOME>                               0
<EXPENSES-NET>                       2,441,120
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>             (2,200,142)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>           (13,908,721)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>          (30,030,225)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>              (46,139,088)
<EQUALIZATION>                               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                    0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                     0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                        0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>            258,490,217
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>        (23,946,290)
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                          0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>             188,404,839
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                      0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                    0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                      0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                   0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                1,106,818
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                      2,537,514
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                40,562,936
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                    11.40
<PER-SHARE-NII>                          (0.07)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                   0.00
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                      0.00
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                 0.00
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                      0.00
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                       9.14
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                           1.50
[AVG-DEBT-OUTSTANDING]                       0
[AVG-DEBT-PER-SHARE]                         0



</TABLE>
John J. WILSON, Jr., Petitioner v. APEX REPORTING GROUP, INC., et al.;

No. 19-5416

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 18, 2019

Petition for rehearing denied.
Julio A. HUNSBERGER, Petitioner, v. Randy B. DURAN, et al.

No. 19-8024.

Supreme Court of the United States.

May 18, 2020

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