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>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             340
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,154
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,016
<PP&E>                                         229,893
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,078
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 224,103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,507
<BONDS>                                         63,081
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,083
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   224,103
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,824
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,669
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,811
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,733
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,733
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48
        

</TABLE>
#### Gerald HARRIS v. LAMBERT REDI-MIX, INC. and Paul Lambert.

No. 2003-OC-1395.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Harris, Gerald; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 382,911; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002-CA-2557.

Not considered. Not timely filed.
STATE v. Amia Smith ERVIN

331P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 5, 2017

Mary McCullers Reece, Attorney at Law, Smithfield, for Ervin, Amia Smith.

Narcisa Woods, Attorney at Law, Narcisa Woods, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for State of North Carolina, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of October 2017 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of October 2017."
----

----

|   | 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 results of operations of the      Operating Partnership. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  /s/      Terry L.      Stevens                                                                    |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Terry      L. StevensSenior      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General      Partner |   |
| February 11, 2010                                                                             |   |

----
#### SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF LABOR and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Respondents, Communications Workers of America, Local 12222, Intervenor-Employee Representatives.

No. 77-2463

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 21, 1978.

*369Joseph R. Dyer, Bell Telephone Co., James M. Shatto, Houston, Tex., for petitioner.

Allen H. Feldman, Asst. Counsel, Dept, of Labor, Benjamin W. Mintz, Assoc. Sol, Carin A. Clauss, Sol. of Labor, Michael H. Levin, John A. Bryson, Attys., U. S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D. C., for respondents.

William N. Wheat, Neta L. Frazier, Houston, Tex., for Communications Workers Bldg.

Before RONEY, GEE and FAY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc.*v. *Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part 1.

PER CURIAM:

On this Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the employer argues that telecommunications standard 29 C.F.R. § 1910.268(h)(8)(iii) (1976) does not require the top rung of a fixed manhole ladder to be within 12 inches of the top of the manhole, and that the 26-inch space from the top to the first rung on employer’s ladders did not contravene that regulation which provides:

> (8) The following requirements apply to metal manhole ladders.

> (iii) The spacing of rungs or steps shall be on 12-inch centers.

We uphold the Commission’s determination that the regulation requires the top rung of a fixed manhole ladder to be within 12 inches of the top of the manhole. We hold that such decision is not contrary to the plain meaning of the regulation nor is the regulation so vague as to violate due process. The Commission did not abuse its discretion in assessing a $50 penalty for this nonserious violation.

AFFIRMED AND ENFORCED.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

J.D., the father,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

and GUARDIAN AD LITEM PROGRAM,

Appellees.

No. 4D18-1358

[August 9, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Hope Tieman Bristol, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2016-5021 

DP.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Paul O'Neil, Assistant Regional 

Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, West Palm 

Beach, for appellant.

Stephanie L. Serafin of Kreusler-Walsh, Vargas & Serafin, P.A., West 

Palm Beach, Thomasina Moore and Laura J. Lee, Tallahassee, for appellee 

Guardian Ad Litem Program.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn 

Schwarz, Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee

Department of Children & Families.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., WARNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Chadwick Allen HARP, Respondent.

No. 856, Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 1, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2003, there having been filed with this Court' by Chadwick Allen Harp his verified Statement of Resignation dated June 10, 2003, stating that he desires to resign from *957the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Chadwick Allen Harp be and it is hereby accepted and he is disbarred on consent from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Steven L.
Basta, Chief Executive Officer of BioForm Medical, Inc. (the Company), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that:



|(i) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 of the Company (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |  |  |     |  |                                        
|----------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------
|                  |  |  | 
|Date: May 9, 2008 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Steven L. Basta                    
|                  |  |  |  |     |  | Steven L. Basta Chief Executive Officer
Wayne T. BRACKETT, Jr. v. Kelly J. THOMAS, Commissioner

No. 146PA17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

*186Christopher W. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, for Thomas, Kelly J. (Commissioner NC Division of Motor Vehicles).

Joel N. Oakley, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Brackett, Wayne T. (Jr.)

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of May 2017 by Respondent 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
IB 

Union Calendar No. 403 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4315 

[Report No. 113–537] 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require publication on 

the Internet of the basis for determinations that species are endangered 

species or threatened species, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2014 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (for himself, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. 

BISHOP of Utah, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. HUIZENGA

of Michigan, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, and Mr. VALADAO) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources 

JULY 17, 2014 

Additional sponsors: Mr. LUCAS, Mr. WALDEN, Mr. GOSAR, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. 

COTTON, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. OLSON, Mr. POMPEO, Mr. TIBERI, Mr. 

JONES, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. TIPTON, Mr. SMITH of Missouri, Mr. 

FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. PEARCE, and Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS

JULY 17, 2014 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on March 27, 2014] 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4315 RH

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require 

publication on the Internet of the basis for determinations that species are endangered species or threatened 

species, and for other purposes. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4315 RH

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 ‘‘21st Century Endan5 gered Species Transparency Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT TO PUBLISH ON THE INTERNET THE 

7 BASIS FOR LISTINGS. 

8 Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 

9 1533(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(9) The Secretary shall make publicly available on 

11 the Internet the best scientific and commercial data avail12 able that are the basis for each regulation, including each 

13 proposed regulation, promulgated under subsection (a)(1), 

14 except that, at the request of a Governor or legislature of 

15 a State, the Secretary shall not make available under this 

16 paragraph information regarding which the State has de17 termined public disclosure is prohibited by a law of that 

18 State relating to the protection of personal information.’’. 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 403 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4315 

[Report No. 113–537] 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to 

poses. species or threatened species, and for other purfor determinations that species are endangered require publication on the Internet of the basis 

JULY 17, 2014 

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Comand ordered to be printed mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 


tjames on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE, LLC v. ETRANSMEDIA TECHNOLOGY, INC.

330A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 20, 2017

Shannon R. Joseph, Attorney at Law, John T. Kivus, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Christopher Jackson, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Allscripts Healthcare, LLC.

Tracie H. Brisson, Attorney at Law, for Etransmedia Technology, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of April 2017 by Plaintiff to Withdraw Appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of April 2017."
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steven D. HOWE, Appellant.

No. ED 81806.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Sept. 2, 2003.

Nancy A. McKerrow, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.

John M. Morris, III, Charnette D. Douglass, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

*692Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J, and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephen D. Howe (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of attempting to manufacture or produce a controlled substance pursuant to Section 195.211 RSMo (2000). Appellant claims the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence and his objections during trial, by admitting the evidence seized at his residence. Appellant claims the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant did not contain sufficient information from which a neutral and detached magistrate could find probable cause to believe evidence of a crime would be found at his residence because there was no basis, alleged within the affidavit, to find the informants reliable or trustworthy. Further, Appellant claims the law enforcement officer who prepared the affidavit omitted material facts which would have given the judge cause to doubt the veracity of the primary source of the information.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find the trial court’s judgment was not clearly erroneous. *State v. Berry,*801 S.W.2d 64, 66 (Mo. banc 1990). An extended opinion reciting the facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.2
  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  ANSWERS CORPORATION
  FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
  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 Form 10-Q of Answers Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Form 10-Q”), I, Steven Steinberg, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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, the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
      Date: November 12, 2010
/s/ Steven SteinbergSteven SteinbergChief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
State of North Carolina v. Travis Lamont Daughtridge

No. 329P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2017

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Attorney at Law, for Daughtridge, Travis Lamont.

Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd of September 2016 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 26th of January 2017."

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 16th of September 2016 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:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of January 2017."
March20, 2013

**CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON**

Referenceis made to the Annual Information Form to be included in the Annual Report onForm 40-F (collectively, the “40-F”) of Nevsun Resources Ltd. to be filed withthe United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.

Ihereby consent to (i) the references to my name in the 40-F as an author of thereport entitled “Bisha Polymetallic Operation, Eritrea, Africa, NI 43-101Technical Report” dated August 31, 2012, and (ii) to the use of the reports inthe 40-F.

***/s/ Peter Munro***_____________________Peter Munro, BAppSc. Mineralurgy  Pty. Ltd.

----
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1943/2004

of 11 November 2004         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 November 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 November 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 11 November 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Paul BROOKS, III

No. COA17-279

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 19, 2017

AFFIRMED IN PART. VACATED IN PART.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Ernest C. Sposato, Petitioner. Ronald Graham et al., Respondents.*

Supreme Court, Onondaga County,

September 9, 1943.

*Irving H. Lessen*for petitioner.

*Walter Soule*for Ronald Graham, respondent.

*Charles Major*for Election Commissioners and another, respondents.

*

 See, also, *Matter of Sposato (Graham),*180 Misc, 933.— [Rep.

Cregg, J.

This is an application for an order directing the Commissioners of Election and the Board of Elections of the County of Onondaga to disregard the name of Ronald Graham which was written in on the primary ballots of the American Labor Party held on August 10, 1943, for the office of District Attorney of Onondaga County, and not to place the *941same upon the printed ballots of the voting machines for the election to be held on November 2nd. The application is made upon the grounds that Ronald Graham is not an attorney and counselor at law and therefore he is not eligible to hold the office of district attorney.

It was conceded upon the argument that Ronald Graham was not an attorney. It was urged, however, by Mr. Soule, attorney for Graham, that if his name was prohibited from appearing upon the voting machines, voters in the county of Onondaga who desired to vote for him would be disfranchised and for that reason his name should appear upon the voting machines. If such voters are disfranchised it is because some members of the party attempted to nominate for the office of District Attorney one who they knew had been disqualified by a previous decision of the Supreme Court.

It was further urged by the attorney for Graham that he Avas not disqualified from holding the office because the laws of this State did not specify the qualifications required of a person to hold the office of district attorney. The law is clearly defective in this respect. However, the laws of this State provide that no one can appear and act as attorney in courts of record in this State unless he is a duly qualified attorney, except where he appears in his own behalf. In my opinion, Graham would be disqualified from holding the office of District Attorney if he were elected. It does not seem reasonable to me that the Election Law, Avhich provides for nominations by primary or by petition and election by ballots printed at public expense, authorizes the nomination of a person concededly disqualified from holding the public office which he seeks. All votes for him would be of no avail. The election machinery which is run at great public expense is for the purpose of doing a useful and not useless thing.

Order may be entered in accordance with this opinion directing the Commissioners of Election and the Board of Elections of Onondaga County to disregard the name of Ronald Graham and not place it upon the printed ballots of the A-oting machines for the election to be held November 2, 1943, in the county of Onondaga, New York.
STATE v. Christopher Angelo WHITEHEAD

465P16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 1, 2017

Ms. Sharon L. Smith, Attorney at Law, For Whitehead, Christopher Angelo.

Ms. Kristin Jo Uicker, Assistant Attorney General, For State of North Carolina.

Mr. Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney, For State.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 2nd of February 2017 by Defendant to Deem Response Timely Filed:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of November 2017."