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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the balance sheet and income statement, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial schedules.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             125
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      489
<ALLOWANCES>                                        15
<INVENTORY>                                        569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,309
<PP&E>                                           1,497
<DEPRECIATION>                                     513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,078
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,855
<BONDS>                                            551
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         11
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                         776
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,078
<SALES>                                            498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   498
<CGS>                                              309
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      860
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (371)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (381)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (381)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (5.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5.21)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21316]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


National Research Advisory Council; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the National Research 
Advisory Council willhold a meeting on Tuesday, November 8, 2005, at 
the Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, 14th & K streets, NW., Washington, DC. 
The meeting will convene at 8:30 a.m. and conclude by 3 p.m. The 
meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the Council is to provide 
external advice and review for VA's research mission.
    The agenda will include a review of and discussion about the 
Council's annual report for 2005, an overview of research, education, 
and clinical centers, and an update on deployment health and Gulf War 
research.
    Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or wishing 
further information should contact Ms. Karen Scott, Designated Federal 
Officer, at (202) 254-0200. Oral comments from the public will not be 
accepted at the meeting. Written statements or comments should be 
transmitted electronically to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8fe4eefdeae1a1fcece0fbfbcfe7fea1e2eaeba1f9eea1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdd6dccfd8d393ceded2c9c9fdd5cc93d0d8d993cbdc93dad2cb">[email protected]</span></a> or mailed to 
Ms. Scott at Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and 
Development (12C), 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20420.

    Dated: October 14, 2005.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21316 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

                                                                      Exhibit 3

                             **NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                                       AND SUBSIDIARIES

                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BY-LAWS

The following documents of Navistar Financial Corporation are incorporated herein by
reference:

3.1       Restated  Certificate  of  Incorporation  of  Navistar  Financial   Corporation  (as
          amended and in effect on December 15,  1987).  Filed on Form 8-K dated  December 17,
          1987.  Commission File No. 1-4146-l.

3.2       The By-Laws of Navistar  Financial  Corporation  (as  amended  February 29,  1988).
          Filed on Form 10-K dated January 19, 1989.  Commission File No. 1-4146-1.**
```
Exhibit 21

Subsidiaries

The significant subsidiaries of Sears, Roebuck and Co., the names under 
which such subsidiaries do business, and the states or countries in which 
each was organized, were as follows at December 30, 1995:

                                                             Place of
Name                                                         Organization

Consolidated Subsidiaries:
Maxserv. Inc.                                                  Texas
Sears Canada Inc.                                              Canada
   Sears Acceptance Company Inc.                               Canada
Sears Credit Corp. I                                           Delaware
Sears Credit Corp. II                                          Delaware
Sears DC Corp.                                                 Delaware
Sears Logistics Services, Inc.                                 Delaware
Sears National Bank                                            United States
Sears Overseas Finance N.V.                                    Netherlands 
                                                                Antilles
Sears Receivables Financing Group, Inc.                        Delaware
Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.                                 Delaware
Sears, Roebuck de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                         Mexico
Sears, Roebuck de Puerto Rico, Inc.                            Delaware
Western Auto Supply Company                                    Delaware
  Tire America Inc.                                            Delaware
   NTW Incorporated                                            Delaware

94 other companies                                             Various

   The Company owns 20% to 50% of the outstanding voting securities of 24 
companies which are accounted for on an equity method.

   The Company has investments in a number of other corporations representing
substantial percentages (but not more than 20 percent) of their outstanding 
capital stock.  The Company disclaims control of any such companies.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 14, 2023

No. 04-23-00361-CV

IN RE Brian GILROY, Relator

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

The April 26, 2023 order staying trial court proceedings is LIFTED, Relator’s Agreed 

Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Mandamus is GRANTED, and the petition for writ of 

mandamus is DISMISSED. Because the motion does not indicate that the parties agreed otherwise, 

costs of appeal are taxed against the relator. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

It is so ORDERED on June 14, 2023.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of June, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2022-CI-20684, styled Brian Gilroy v. Patrick Corbett, Jim Hale, Ryan 

Menius and Mark Menius, pending in the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Marisa 

Flores presiding.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

E.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

KANSAS CITY VA MEDICAL CENTER,

Kansas City, MO, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1057

Issued: September 28, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Alan J. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 7, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a June 14, 2021

merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the 

Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-1057.

In a letter dated August 17, 2021, counsel requested that the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-1057 is dismissed.

Issued: September 28, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130965(69) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. BEVERLY A. MOORE, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 130965 COA: 262390 Wayne CC: 04-416248-CD LISETTE A. EGAN, BRI AN OBERLY, PATTY SCHOECK, YVONNE BROWNLESS, ALICIA HORVATH, and SISTER S OF BON SECOURS NURSING CARE CENTER, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of July 31, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

p0918 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 26, 2006

Clerk
### ORIGINAL , 

## _gLfj r^ft ^t/n. reR- re.- oo^^-- r.g». VfafiLs
-j-^SLOL^ FILED UOUHTUi-CRIMINALAPPEAlT (El 

### &&aL-JAaJJL. OCT 2 9 2C;5 COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Abe.Acosta, dark OCT262015 

## J^£tA_J*fc^^ Q^ UjC^dQJrJriA^-^ \nJ_U\f\A- (WxQ rKprV/T, Olv^Ol/. 

### £--GL£j£££uCi^^

CC*, -fOle 

### _JX_ojsAZOc_ik£l<,JTX.J^ Prsr. PoWft 4- C\r>r»^>\-0cwN, Jc^f^^f cx^r^^^jj^Lfi.

nnxhi fS \o o. IA-pXId \\c*- 

### XVn f^V ^J2Z^±1- Pl„.-,^iH^S- - ^t-,^XW. 

# ftp^Wl TnT-^n-ir ^<<^ ^i.^VmX- ^nirif YV. • rft te-^^k

-?t\o\ F^ ^kA ^,



### ^^^)a. Par \c\ T&LCL S ^^b^- k<,q<\:Trt.W cfr Cffi\V,prV^ i^ei^—^^ 

### ia^^niLjG&^^ 2l

•j&i^jdc^ k



## ^i^LiD^usk,, .-^_____^ ._._„„._3_niA. •^gia^QiU^c^-^-^r^ Ca,^ H 

### iJo^A;^ __^A
JQ^A^r -For Kol^fl- yt>- \> 

### j£j2J±&£L_C^ 6$ JkXiZLak—_ Ql



## 9m^ V o» Q-
#### FOTINI KOKKOS, Appellant, v. STEPHEN TSALIKIS, Respondent.

No. 7548

January 20, 1975

530 P.2d 756

*Ohrenschall & Ohrenschall,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Robert G. Legakes,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On June 18, 1973, a complaint was filed by Fotini Kokkos against Stephen Tsalikis, and on August 7, 1973, a default was entered against Stephen Tsalikis. Tsalikis on August 15, 1973, filed a motion to set aside default and on August 20, 1973, an *25order setting aside the default was entered. After a petition for review was granted and order setting aside entry of default again entered on October 12, 1973, Kokkos appealed the order setting aside entry of default.

An order setting aside entry of default is not an appealable order under NRAP SA(b).1 NRAP 3A(b) designates the judgments and orders from which an appeal may be taken and where no statutory authority to appeal is granted, no right exists. State v. Langan, 29 Nev. 459 (1907); Davis v. Davis, 66 Nev. 164, 207 P.2d 240 (1949).

Dismissed.

1

 NRAP 3A(b) states, “Appealable Determinations. An appeal may be taken:

> (1) From a final judgment in an action or proceeding commenced in the court in which the judgment is rendered.

> (2) From an order granting or refusing a new trial, or granting or refusing to grant or dissolving or refusing to dissolve an injunction, or appointing or refusing to appoint a receiver, or vacating or refusing to vacate an order appointing a receiver, or dissolving or refusing to dissolve an attachment, or changing or refusing to change the place of trial, and from any special order made after final judgment.

> (3) From an interlocutory judgment, order or decree made or entered in actions to redeem real or personal property from a mortgage thereof or lien thereon, determining such right to redeem and directing an accounting, and from an interlocutory judgment in actions for partition which determines the rights and interests of the respective parties and directs partition, sale or division to be made.

> (4) If an order granting or refusing to grant a motion to change the place of trial of an action or proceeding is not directly appealed from within thirty (30) days, there shall be no appeal therefrom on appeal from the judgment in the action or proceeding or otherwise, and on demand or motion of either party to an action or proceeding the court or judge making the order changing or refusing to change the place of trial of an action or proceeding shall make an order staying the trial of the action or proceeding until the time to appeal from such order, changing or refusing to change the place of trial, shall have lapsed; or if an appeal from such order is taken, until such appeal shall in the appellate court, or in some other manner, be legally determined.

> (5) No appeal may be taken from an order of a district court denying a motion for summary judgment; however such an order may be reviewed by the Supreme Court in an original proceeding in mandamus when from the record it appears that it is the duty of the district court to enter summary judgment.”
Exhibit
32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, M. Jack
Kugler , Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors of U.S.
Precious Metals, Inc. (the Company), do 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 my knowledge:

1.          This
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the period ended November
30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

|                                                                | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: May
 14, 2009                                             | 
|                                                                | 
|/s/ M. Jack
 Kugler                                             | 
|                                                                | 
|M. Jack
 Kugler                                                 | 
|Chief
 Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors | 
|(Principal Executive
 Officer)                                  | 

---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

San Antonio, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0302

Issued: January 28, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On December 20, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a March 11, 2021 nonmerit decision

of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 22-0302.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the March 11, 2021 decision was September 7, 2021. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until December 20, 2021, more than 180 days after the

March 11, 2021 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0302 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0302 is dismissed.

Issued: January 28, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
#### FRANK PARIS, Appellant, v. PAUL SARAT, Respondent.

No. 7367

December 20, 1974

529 P.2d 213

*Douglas R. Pike,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Goodman, Snyder & Gang,*and *M. Douglas Whitney,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This civil action to recover damages for assault and battery was tried to the court without a jury. Upon conflicting evidence, the judge found for the plaintiff and assessed damages. In his oral decision from the bench he made the following comment: “Now, it isn’t on the record and I’m not giving it much weight, but one of the witnesses was advising another defense witness what not to say when she was called into court. I’m just pointing that out as a passing remark, which doesn’t surprise me because of the bond of friendship and the common feeling they have toward each other.”

*429The comment reflects that the judge gave some weight to the off-record comments of one defense witness to another defense witness. It also suggests that their in court testimony may have been discredited. Accordingly, the defendant-appellant asserts prejudicial error. The plaintiff-respondent, conceding error, argues that such error must be deemed harmless.

This case is unlike those in which the appellate court presumes that the trial judge did not consider erroneously admitted evidence if there is ample competent evidence in the record to support his decision. In those cases, the reception of such incompetent evidence often has been held harmless. Meagher v. Garvin, 80 Nev. 211, 219, 391 P.2d 507 (1964); Serpa v. Porter, 80 Nev. 60, 70, 389 P.2d 241 (1964); Duplantis v. Duplantis, 50 Nev. 234, 236, 255 P. 1014 (1927); Rehling v. Brainard, 38 Nev. 16, 22, 144 P. 167 (1914). We may not indulge such a presumption here since the trial judge admitted giving some weight to the off-record comments of one defense witness to another. Moreover, the defendant lost and the evidence, in material respects, was conflicting. In these circumstances, we must deem the error to be prejudicial. Other assigned errors need not be considered.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005, I, Richard D. Balanson, Chief Executive Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell
Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. at the dates indicated.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|               |  |  |  |                                                                   
|-------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|               |  | 
|March 15, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    RICHARD D.
BALANSON                                        
|               |  |  |  | Richard D. Balanson                                               
|               |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. and will be retained by Maxwell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 07-14-00026-CV

In the Interest of S.C., a Child From the 286th District Court

 of Hockley County

July 23, 2014

Opinion by Justice Pirtle

§

§

§

§

§

§

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated July 23, 2014, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY