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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   93,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     38,946
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               162,763
<PP&E>                                       2,719,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                 145,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,277,993
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,400,763
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,393
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,355,921
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,277,993
<SALES>                                      6,298,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,298,074
<CGS>                                        4,210,732
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,649,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,562
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             109,824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (409,353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (409,353)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (409,353)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
SCPW-13-0000050

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

RICHARD RUH, Petitioner,

vs.

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CAAP-12-0001021; S.P.P. NO. 12-1-0003(2))

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Richard Ruh’s petition

for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on January 28, 2013, the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and

the record, it appears that petitioner does not have a clear and

indisputable right to the appointment of counsel for an appeal in

a post-conviction proceeding. Moreover, petitioner fails to

demonstrate that the ICA exceeded its jurisdiction in denying his

request for the appointment of counsel, committed a flagrant and

manifest abuse of discretion in doing so, or has refused to act

on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in

which the court has a legal duty to act. Petitioner, therefore,

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-13-0000050

14-FEB-2013

08:42 AM
is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91

Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; where a court has

discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or

control the exercise of that discretion, even when the court has

acted erroneously, unless the court has exceeded its

jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of

discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before

the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to

act). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without

payment of the filing fee.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a

writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 14, 2013.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

2
STATE OF LOUISIANA

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

JAMES A. BLAKE

NO. 2023 KW 0949

OCTOBER 13, 2023

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 

20th Judicial District Court, Parish of West

Feliciana, No. 23- WFLN- 41. 

BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE,, AND WOLFE, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

JEW

GH

Wolfe, J., dissents and would grant the writ application. 

The defendant bears the burden of persuasion by a preponderance

of the evidence in non -homicide cases involving self- defense. 

See State v. Cheatham, 38, 413 ( La. App. 2nd Cir. 6/ 23/ 04), 877

So. 2d 164, 172- 73, writ denied, 2004- 2224 ( La. 6/ 24/ 05), 904

So. 2d 717. in non -homicide cases where self- defense is raised, a

1, ua.1 inquiry --,.s required; " an objective inquiry into whether the

force used was reasonable under the circumstances; and

subjective inquiry into wnether the force used was apparently

necessary." See State v. Freeman, 427 So. 2d 1161, 1163 ( La. 

1983). if the burden of persuasion , on was placed on the State t.o

disprove the subjective C' Lve influences, the State would bear an

onerous burden " since ` Lt would only be the defendant who has

these facts at his disposal S.fDOsal to produce to the court." See

Cheatham, 877 So. 2d at 17-3).
**Exhibit12.1**

 

**Hospira,Inc.**

 

**Computationof Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**

 

**(Unaudited)**

 

***(dollars in millions except ratios)***

*** ***
| ** **                                                     | ** ** | **Nine Months**             | ** ** |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                     | ** ** | **Ended**                        | ** ** |
| ** **                                                     | ** ** | **September 30, 2007** | ** ** |
|                                                           |       |                             |       |
| Income from Continuing Operations Before  Taxes                |       | $                                | 98.1       |   |
| Add (Subtract):                                                |       |                             |       |
| One-third of rents                                             |       | 4.6                              |       |
| Interest on long-term and short-term debt                      |       | 102.5                            |       |
| Interest capitalized, net of amortization                      |       | 5.2                              |       |
|                                                           |       |                             |       |
| Earnings from Continuing Operations                            |       | $                                | 210.5      |   |
|                                                           |       |                             |       |
| Fixed charges:                                                 |       |                             |       |
| One-third of rents                                             |       | $                                | 4.6        |   |
| Interest on long-term and short-term debt                      |       | 102.5                            |       |
| Interest capitalized                                           |       | 8.3                              |       |
|                                                           |       |                             |       |
| Fixed Charges from Continuing Operations                       |       | $                                | 115.4      |   |
|                                                           |       |                             |       |
| Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges from  Continuing Operations |       | 1.8                              |       |

 

For purposes of computing this ratio, “earnings” consistof income from continuing operations before taxes, one-third of rents (deemedby Hospira to be representative of the interest factor inherent in rents),interest expense and interest capitalized, net of amortization. “Fixed charges”consist of one-third of rents, interest expense as reported in the Company’sconsolidated financial statements and interest capitalized.

 

1

----
In re R.H., A Minor Child (DOB: 11-15-99) appealed by Respondent, A.B.

No. 55P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 3, 2005.

David Childers, Mount Holly, for A.B.

Connelia Houston, for Mecklenburg County DSS.

Stanley B. Green, Winston-Salem, for Guardian Ad Litem.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th day of January 2005 by Respondent (A.B.) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of March 2005."
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL OP-OFA-021]

*Responsible Agency:*                     Office of Federal Activities, General Information 202-564-5632 or                     *https://www.epa.gov/​nepa.*

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

Filed June 13, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through June 17, 2022 10 a.m. EST

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

*Notice:*                     Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:                     *https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/​cdx-enepa-public/​action/​eis/​search.*

EIS No. 20220084, Draft, BOEM, NJ, Ocean Wind 1 Offshore Wind Farm,  Comment Period Ends: 08/08/2022, Contact: Michelle Morin 703-787-1722.

EIS No. 20220085, Draft, FERC, IL, Spire STL Pipeline Project,  Comment Period Ends: 08/08/2022, Contact: Office of External Affairs 866-208-3372.

Dated: June 17, 2022.

Cindy S. Barger,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2022-13527 Filed 6-23-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5104 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5104

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
         To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 15 days.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. 15-DAY EXTENSION OF THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007.

    Section 6(c) of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55; 
121 Stat. 557; 50 U.S.C. 1803 note) is amended by striking ``180 days'' 
and inserting ``195 days''.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 29, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5104

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

         To extend the Protect America Act of 2007 for 15 days.
```
DIAZ v. DIVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES.

No. 523PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 15, 2005.

Melanie M. Hamilton, Thomas E. Cone, Wendell H. Ott, Greensboro, for Diaz.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of March 2005 by Respondent for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Respondent (Divison of Social Services, et al) shall have up to and including the 4th day of May 2005 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 15th day of March 2005."
STATE v. CUMMINGS

No. COA04-633

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed February 1, 2005

Certification Date February 21, 2005

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1528 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow a veterinarian to transport 

and dispense controlled substances in the usual course of veterinary 

practice outside of the registered location. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2013 

Mr. SCHRADER (for himself, Mr. YOHO, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mrs. BLACKBURN, 

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. COLLINS of New 

York, and Mr. PIERLUISI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 

the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow a veterinarian to transport and dispense controlled substances 

in the usual course of veterinary practice outside of 

the registered location. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterinary Medicine 

5 Mobility Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1528 IH

1 SEC. 2. TRANSPORT AND DISPENSING OF CONTROLLED 

2 SUBSTANCES IN THE USUAL COURSE OF VET3 ERINARY PRACTICE. 

4 Section 302(e) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

5 U.S.C. 822(e)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘(e)’’ and inserting ‘‘(e)(1)’’; 

7 and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a registrant 

10 who is a veterinarian shall not be required to have a sepa11 rate registration in order to transport and dispense con12 trolled substances in the usual course of veterinary prac13 tice at a site other than the registrant’s registered prin14 cipal place of business or professional practice, so long as 

15 the site of dispensing is located in a State where the vet16 erinarian is licensed to practice veterinary medicine.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
STATE v. BECKHAM.

No. COA04-51.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 15, 2005.

Certification Date April 4, 2005.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (02CRS207955, 02CRS207956).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
```

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Chardan China Acquisition Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I Li Zhang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and

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

By: /s/ Li Zhang                                        Dated: November 19, 2004
    ----------------------------------------
    Li Zhang
    Chief Financial Officer
    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```
NO. 07-07-0453-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	JANUARY 31, 2008

	______________________________

	LARRY SCROGGS, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 69TH DISTRICT COURT OF MOORE COUNTY;

	NO. 3989; HONORABLE RON ENNS, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

	ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Following a plea of not guilty, appellant, Larry Scroggs, was convicted by a jury of aggravated kidnapping and two counts of burglary of a habitation.  Punishment was assessed at ten years community supervision.  Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal challenging his conviction.1  The clerk’s record filed on December 3, 2007 contains the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal.  The form, however, is not signed by appellant as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d).2

	Consequently, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.  On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to secure a Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d).  Once properly executed, the certification shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record and filed with this Court on or before February 28, 2008.

	It is so ordered. 

								Per Curiam

Do not publish.
SALKIN v. HORNE.

No. COA04-743.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed April 5, 2005.

Certification Date April 25, 2005.

Appeal from Mecklenburg, (02CVS5118).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

DARELL LEE HOLMES, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 804 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED. 

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
IN RE T.C.

No. COA04-1021

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed July 19, 2005

Certification Date August 8, 2005

Appeal from Wilkes (98J130, 98J131, 98J132, 02J193).

Case without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Albert Theodore BACON.

No. 136P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 4, 2005.

Lemuel W. Hinton, for Albert T. Bacon.

Daniel S. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 7th day of March 2005 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 4th day of May 2005."
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5080 

To extend the suspension of duty on Desmodur HL BA. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 18, 2008 

Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the suspension of duty on Desmodur HL BA. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESMODUR HL BA. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.12.18 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Benzene, 1,3-diisocyanatomethyl-, polymer with 1,6- 

7 diisocyanatohexane dissolved in n-butyl acetate) is amend8 ed by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5080 IH

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A1715. RACQUEL GREEN et al. v. MAIN STREET RENEWAL, LLC.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following

an adverse ruling, Racquel Green and Linda Green (collectively, the “Defendants”)

appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the issuance of a writ of possession in

favor of Main Street Renewal, LLC (the “Plaintiff”). The superior court further stated

that if the Defendants pursued an appeal, they would be required to pay $20,042.85

into the court’s registry and an additional $1,195.00 per month due on the first day

of each month. The Defendants filed a notice of appeal to this Court, which we

dismissed due to their failure to follow the discretionary appeal procedure. See Case

No. A19A1358 (dismissed Feb. 21, 2019).

After the Defendants failed to pay the required funds into the court registry as

outlined in the superior court’s order, the Plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeal and

for the writ of possession to issue instanter. On February 22, 2019, the superior court

ordered that the writ of possession be granted effective instanter. The Defendantsthen

filed the instant direct appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

As we previously explained in our February 21, 2019 dismissal order, because

the order at issue disposes of a de novo appeal from a magistrate court decision, the

Defendants were required to follow the discretionary appeal procedures to obtain

review before this Court. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11); Strachan v. Meritor Mtg.

Corp. East, 216 Ga. App. 82, 82 (453 SE2d 119) (1995). Their failure to do so

deprives us of jurisdiction over this appeal.

April 11, 2019
Accordingly, the Defendants’ appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/11/2019
```

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Chardan China Acquisition
Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I Li Zhang, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and

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

By: /s/ Li Zhang                                          Dated: August 12, 2004
    ------------------------------------------
        Li Zhang
        Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```