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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                           6,442
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,330
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,146
<INVENTORY>                                     63,313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,921
<PP&E>                                          27,012
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,464
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,027
<BONDS>                                          7,480
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,534
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,218
<SALES>                                        113,692
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,692
<CGS>                                           87,896
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,896
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   250
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,902
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,568
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,334
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,334
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .75
        

</TABLE>
CRAIG v. BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 484PA07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 1, 2008.

Bruce Robinson, Wilmington, Burton Craige, Raleigh, for Craig.

David A. Nash, Wilmington, for Board of Education.

Barbara B. Weyher, T. Carlton Younger, III, Raleigh, Allison Schafer, Legal Counsel, for NC School Boards Asso.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 23rd day of September 2008 by Police Benevolent Assoc. for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Denied. By order of the Court in conference this the 1st day of October 2008."

Justice EDMUNDS recused.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 53676)    
                    Notice is hereby given of the cancellation of the Commission on Systemic Interoperability, September 13, 2005, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 800, 200 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20201, cancellation of the Commission on Systemic Interoperability Teleconference, October 11, 2005, 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., National Library of Medicine, Conference Room B, Building 38, 2nd Floor, Bethesda, Maryland 20894, and the cancellation of the Commission on Systemic Interoperability, October 24, 2005, 8 a.m. to 1 p.m., Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 800, 200 Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20201, all of which were published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on July 13, 2005, 70 FR 40392.                

These meetings are cancelled, as they are no longer necessary to complete Commission activities.

Dated: August 31, 2005.

Anthony M. Coelho, Jr., 

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-17940 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
KHAJA v. HUSNA.

No. 375A15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 25, 2015.

Deborah Sandlin, for Khaja, Dabeeruddin.

Debra A. Griffiths.

Fatima Husna, Santa Clara, for Husna, Fatima.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of November 2015 by Defendant-Appellant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 25th of November 2015."
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Richard E. Aho, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mile Marker
International, Inc. (the "Company"), have executed this certification in
connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30,
2004 (the "Report").

The undersigned hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 1st
day of November, 2004.


/s/ Richard E. Aho
-------------------
    Richard E. Aho
President and Chief Executive Officer

                                       19
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3726 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3726

       To reauthorize the Crime-Free Rural States Grants program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 10, 2008

   Mr. Leahy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To reauthorize the Crime-Free Rural States Grants program.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Crime-Free Rural States 
Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF CRIME-FREE RURAL STATES GRANTS.

    Section 2989 of Part GG of Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797y-4) is amended by striking 
``2003, 2004 and 2005'' and inserting ``2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

[FRACTAL DESIGN LETTERHEAD]

Press Contact:
MARK ZIMMER
CEO
(408) 430-4000
mark_zimmer@fractal.com

For Immediate Release

FRACTAL DESIGN ANNOUNCES MANAGEMENT CHANGE

Scotts Valley, CA - January 30, 1997 - Fractal Design Corporation (NASDAQ: FRAC)
today announced that Eric Hautemont, the Company's President, will resign as an
officer and director of the Company effective February 1, 1997. Mr. Hautemont,
who joined Fractal as part of Fractal's acquisition of Ray Dream, Inc., in March
1996, is leaving the Company to spend more time with his family. Mark Zimmer,
Fractal's co-founder and Chief Executive Officer and currently Chairman of the
Board, will reassume the position of President, an office he held prior to the
acquisition of Ray Dream. Co-founder Tom Hedges will reassume his position of
Chairman.

"Fractal is extremely appreciative of Eric's efforts in the successful
integration of Ray Dream and Fractal," said Zimmer. "Together we have created a
combined company with unparalleled development talent. We'll continue doing
that," added Hedges.

Zimmer continued, "As I resume the role of president, I'm thankful for Eric's
contribution and the team that he brought to Fractal. Together we look forward
to continue building the best graphics products on the planet."

"It has been a great pleasure for me to participate in putting together a
company with such outstanding products as Fractal has today," said Hautemont. "I
look forward to the Company's ongoing success."

Fractal Design Corporation is a major force in multi-platform graphic software,
developing and marketing products that unite traditional artist techniques with
digital technology. Fractal Design products are designed to facilitate and
extend the range of creativity for artists and designers working on desktop
computers. Fractal Design Corporation is headquartered in California at 5550
Scotts Valley Drive, P.O. Box 66959, Scotts Valley, CA 95067-6959.
# # #
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lionel Piper, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 52]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered March 28, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree (16 counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (eight counts), and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of an uncharged firearms transaction *(see e.g. People v Till,*87 NY2d 835 [1995]). The testimony went to the issue of identity, an issue still alive at the time the People offered the testimony, and was also relevant to the contested issue of whether defendant knew that firearms were being sold in certain charged transactions. The probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential for prejudice *(People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 241 [1987]).

The court properly declined to charge entrapment. There was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he was actively induced to engage in criminal activity, rather than merely being afforded an opportunity to commit the charged crimes *(see*Penal Law § 40.05; *People v Brown,*82 NY2d 869 [1993]). The police testimony was that defendant engaged in salesman-like behavior throughout this undercover operation, and there was nothing in defendant’s testimony to support an entrapment defense.

Defendant’s challenges to a detective’s testimony concerning a conversation he had with the codefendant, and to the court’s limiting instruction, are unpreserved *(People v Fleming,*70 *816NY2d 947 [1988]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the testimony was properly admitted since a prima facie case that defendant and his codefendant acted in concert was established without resort to the testimony *(see People v Bac Tran,*80 NY2d 170 [1992]; *People v Salko,*47 NY2d 230 [1979]), and we would find that the court’s limiting instruction was sufficient.

The record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel under both the state and federal standards *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). There is no indication in the record that a timely speedy trial motion would have been successful.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Friedtiian, J.P., Marlow, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,079                   2,594
<SECURITIES>                                    44,522                  46,257
<RECEIVABLES>                                  345,958                  99,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               400,559                 148,326
<PP&E>                                           3,066                   1,286
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (548)                   (124)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 422,232                 160,176
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          283,810                 145,719
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            29                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,393                  14,457
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   422,232                 160,176
<SALES>                                         60,476                  21,566
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,476                  21,566
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,755                  12,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 35,721                   9,324
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,001                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,720                   9,324
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,720                   9,324
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.91                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91                       0


</TABLE>
# CE2004088EN.01062501.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/625 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/625

---

(2004/C 88 E/0643)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2527/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Rum

Subject:

The EU has recognised the importance of the rum sector for the economic and social development of some ACP countries. Special provisions for rum are contained in the EU-US Agreement on White Spirits to back up this recognition. The terms of the Special Memorandum on rum attached to this zero for zero agreement establishes a residual tariff that provides both ACP and EU rum producers in the French DOM a small measure of continuing preference in the European market until such time as traditional suppliers might move from the production of commodity rums to value-added branded products able to compete with large and often subsidised producers in third countries.

Would the Commission, therefore, outline what measures it intends to take during the upcoming GSP review to ensure its commitments to ACP rum producers are kept? Would the Commission confirm that rum is excluded from the GSP review?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

(22 August 2003)

The Joint Declaration on Rum (Declaration XXV) of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP) — Union Partnership Agreement recognises the importance of the rum sector for the economic and social development of several ACP countries and regions and the challenges it faces, inter alia, from the liberalisation of the European rum market.

In the aim of honouring the declaration and providing support to enable ACP rum exporters to increase competitiveness and notably to assist the ACP rum industry to move out of bulk commodity production into higher-value branded rum products, the Union has approved a EUR 70 million programme. This programme is now fully operational, the regional association of Caribbean rum producers, Wirspa, having been strengthened in order to take care of the management of the different programme activities.

Rum is not included in the general arrangements of the Union's current General system of preferences (GSP) scheme which ends on 31 December 2004 although it is included in the GSP's scheme for the least developed countries for which imports of all products except arms and ammunition are duty-free (under the so-called Everything but arms (EBA) scheme). The Commission does not foresee a change to the situation with regards to rum even after the review of the current GSP.

---
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
To the Board of Directors of Sigma Coatings B.V.:
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
PetroFina S.A. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-61145) of our report dated March 22,
1999, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of PetroFina S.A. for the year
ended December 31, 1998, relating to the balance sheets of Sigma Coatings B.V.
as of December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 and the related statements of income for
each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 1998.
 
     /s/ KPMG Accountants NV
 
KPMG Accountants NV
The Hague, the Netherlands
March 22, 1999
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40199

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ARANDA-SILVA , also known as Francisco Diaz-Hernandez

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-542-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Aranda-Silva

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Aranda-Silva has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
IN RE D.N.

No. COA08-1013.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 17, 2009.

Certification Date March 9, 2009.

Appeal from Pitt (03JA209).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 2, 2024

NO. 03-23-00648-CR

Melissa Lynn Schmalhorst, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES SMITH AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Melissa Lynn 

Schmalhorst has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court grants the motion, 

and dismisses the appeal. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this 

Court and in the court below.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

CHAD STEPHEN WILSON,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 16

- 30252

D.C. No. 3:15

- cr

- 00080

- JO

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Robert E. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 5, 2018

Portland, Oregon

Before: N.R. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and CURIEL, ** District

Judge.

Chad Stephen Wilson was convicted of being a felon in possession of a

firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His appeal challenges only the

district court’s order denying his motion to suppress. We have jurisdiction under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s ruling de novo, but we review the

court’s underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Zapien , 861

F.3d 971, 974 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

1. The warrantless search of Wilson’s drawstring backpack complied with

the Fourth Amendment as a reasonable protective search under Michigan v. Long

,

463 U.S. 1032 (1983). At the time of the search, there was reasonable suspicion to

believe that Wilson (or Smith, another recent occupant of the vehicle that was

searched) was “dangerous and [could have] gain[ed] immediate control of

weapons.” Id. at 1049.

2. The warrantless search of Wilson’s drawstring backpack also complied

with the Fourth Amendment as a reasonable search incident to arrest under Arizona

v. Gant , 556 U.S. 332 (2009). Wilson was “unsecured and within reaching

distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.” Id. at 343.

Under such circumstances, the officers could conduct a warrantless search of the

backpack in the passenger com partment without violating the Fourth Amendment.

Id. at 345. The fact that the search occurred prior to Wilson’s arrest did not make

it unreasonable. At the time of the search, the officers possessed probable cause to

believe Wilson had unlawfully posse ssed a restricted weapon, and the search was

“roughly contemporaneous” with the arrest. United States v. Smith , 389 F.3d 944,

951

– 52 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).3

AFFIRMED.
CHARTER SCHOOL v. BOARD OF ED., et al.

No. 116P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

James G. Middlebrooks, Richard A. Vinroot, Charlotte, Justin D. Howard, Raleigh, Jill R. Wilson, Robert J. King, III, Elizabeth V. LaFollette, Greensboro, for Charlotte-Mecklenburg BOE, et al.

Ann L. Majestic, Raleigh, Lisa Lukasik, Allison B. Schafer, for School Boards Assoc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of June 2008 by Defendants to Supplement Petition for Discretionary Review (Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction):

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."