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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000319315
<NAME> C&K 1980 FUND-B, LTD.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         261,194
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  210,885
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               472,079
<PP&E>                                      22,381,049
<DEPRECIATION>                              18,562,098
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,291,030
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,823
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,274,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,291,030
<SALES>                                      1,586,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,600,333
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,245,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                354,652
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            354,652
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   354,652
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.D., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU 

OF THE CENSUS, Guaynabo, PR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0570

Issued: August 19, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On March 7, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from a purported February 18, 2022 decision 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0570.

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 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the 

date appellant filed his appeal.

2

 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a 

final adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current

appeal.3 As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly 

1

5 U.S.C.§ 8101 etseq.;20C.F.R.§§501.2(c)and501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) providesin pertinentpart: “Any noticeof appealmustbefiled within180daysfromthe date 

of issuance of a decisionof the OWCP.”

3

Id.
2

exercise jurisdiction,4the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0570 must be 

dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0570 is dismissed.

Issued: August 19, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
#### NEWTON v. STEWART

No. 1 PC.

Case below: 3 N.C. App. 120.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 21 January 1969.
EXHIBIT 23.4

                          Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
Bull Run Corporation:

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  Registration  Statements
(Nos.  33-91296 and 33-91298) on Form S-8 of Bull Run  Corporation of our report
dated October 11, 1996 with respect to the  consolidated  balance sheets of Host
Communications,  Inc.  and  subsidiaries  as of June 30, 1996 and 1995, and the
related consolidated  statements of earnings,  stockholders'  equity, and cash
flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 1997
annual report on Form 10-K of Bull Run Corporation.

Our  report  refers to a change in the  method of  accounting  for  license  fee
revenues and rights fee expenses.



                                             /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
March 25, 1998
# C_2007290EN.01000501.xml

| 4.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4890 — Arcelor/SFG)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 290/03)

On 22 November 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4890. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4890. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.K., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

MATERIEL COMMAND, ROBINS AIR FORCE 

BASE, GA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0529

Issued: June 30, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 February 16, 2021 appellant sought an appeal from purported March 15, 2013 and 

September 9, 2020 decisions of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The 

Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0505.

On February 18, 2021 appellant filed a second appeal from the purported September 9, 

2020 OWCP decision. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards inadvertently assigned that appeal 

Docket No. 21-0529. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that, since there are now two 

docket numbers assigned for a review of the same OWCP decision, one of the docket numbers 

must be dismissed. Since the Clerk of the Appellate Boards inadvertently assigned Docket No. 

21-0529 to appellant’s second appeal request, this docket number shall be dismissed. The appeal 

docketed as No. 21-0505 will go forward. Accordingly,
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0529 is dismissed.

Issued: June 30, 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
#### SHIRLEY JEAN STEWART, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 9869

June 28, 1978

580 P.2d 473

*Morgan D. Harris,*Public Defender, and *Kirk B. Lenhard,*Deputy Public Defender, Clark County for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *H. Leon Simon,*Chief Appellate Deputy, Clark County, for Respondent.

*379OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Convicted, by jury verdict, of attempted murder (NRS 200.010; NRS 208.070),1 appellant here contends (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain her conviction, and (2) she was denied a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct. We disagree.

1. Although defense witnesses testified that appellant had shot the victim in self defense, the jury chose to believe the prosecution witnesses’ testimony that appellant had threatened the victim and then shot him without provocation. We have previously held that where “there is conflicting testimony presented, it is for the jury to determine what weight and credibility to give to the testimony.” Hankins v. State, 91 Nev. 477, 538 P.2d 167, 168 (1975). *Accord,*Lloyd v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 576 P.2d 740 (1978); Porter v. State, 94 Nev. 142, 576 P.2d 275 (1978). Where, as here, there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Cunningham v. State, 94 Nev. 128, 575 P.2d 936 (1978); Sanders v. State, 90 Nev. 433, 529 P.2d 206 (1974).

2. Appellant argues she was denied a fair trial through improper questioning by the prosecutor. On direct examination, appellant testified that she had been convicted of felony manslaughter in 1970. On cross-examination, the prosecutor attempted to delve further into appellant’s prior conviction. Before appellant had an opportunity to answer an *380allegedly improper question, her counsel objected and the objection was sustained. The prosecutor did not pursue the line of questioning. Under these circumstances, we fail to perceive either prejudice or reversible error. *See*State v. Worth, 537 P.2d 191 (Kan. 1975); Lister v. State, 528 P.2d 1126 (Okla.Crim.App. 1974). *Cf.*Fairman v. State, 83 Nev. 287, 429 P.2d 63 (1967).

Affirmed.

1

NRS 200.010 provides:

> “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought, either express or implied. The unlawful killing may be effected by any of the various means by which death may be occasioned.”

NRS 208.070 provides, in pertinent part:

> “An act done with intent to commit a crime, and tending but failing to accomplish it, is an attempt to commit that crime. ...”
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1996
<CASH>                                      20,414,000
<SECURITIES>                                21,159,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,111,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   500,000
<INVENTORY>                                 19,354,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            73,922,000
<PP&E>                                     124,226,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              90,234,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             108,214,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       36,788,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   123,522,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (65,565,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               108,214,000
<SALES>                                    123,514,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           123,514,000
<CGS>                                       74,303,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               74,303,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,421,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,411,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   576,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         13,835,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,835,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | • | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the quarter                ended                March 31, 2006, 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 |
|--------|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date: May 31, 2006                            |
|----------------------------------------------------|
|                                               |
|                                               |
| /s/ Keith Walz                                |
| Keith Walz                                    |
| Chief Financial Officer                       |
| (Principal                Financial Officer)  |

----
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID HOKE LINDER

No. 7420SC1080

(Filed 16 April 1975)

Criminal Law § 113— definition of terms — request for instructions required

In the absence of a request, the trial court was not required to define the terms “corroboration” and “substantive evidence.”

On *Certiorari*to review convictions of defendant and judgments of *Martin, (Robert M.), Judge.*Judgment entered 4 February 1974 in Superior Court, UNION County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 March 1975.

The defendant was charged in three bills of indictment with (1) assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, (2) assault with intent to commit rape, and (3) kidnapping. The defendant pled not guilty to all charges.

The jury returned verdicts of guilty as charged under the first and third offenses listed above and guilty of assault on a female under the second. From sentences of imprisonment, the defendant seeks a review.

*Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney W. A. Raney, Jr., for the State.*

*Charles V. Bell for the defendant.*

CLARK, Judge.

The only assignment of error brought forward is that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the meaning of the terms “corroboration” and “substantive evidence”. However, in the absence of a request, the trial court is not required to define these terms, and since there was no request here we discern no prejudice to the defendant. *State v. Mitchell,*7 N.C. App. 49, 171 S.E. 2d 31 (1969) and *State v. Hardee,*6 N.C. App. 147, 169 S.E. 2d 533 (1969). Having further reviewed the face of the record for errors, we find none.

No error.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.A., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION,

BLYTHE BORDER PATROL STATION,

Blythe, CA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1044

Issued: December 5, 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

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On July 6, 2022 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 7, 2022 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-1044.

In a letter dated and received October 26, 2022, appellant requested that the appeal be 

withdrawn.

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

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted.1 Accordingly,

1 The Board’s decisions and orders are final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
2

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

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-1044 is dismissed.

Issued: December 5, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
# C_2007135EN.01000101.xml

| 19.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 135/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4648 — Peter Döhle Schiffahrts-KG/GE Transportation Finance Inc./JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 135/01)

On 7 June 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4648. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4648. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
Exhibit 32

# 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 Furniture Brands International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David P. Howard,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| | 
| |
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 23 (Friday, February 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 6045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2164]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINSTRATION

[Notice 05-013]


Return to Flight Task Group; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public 
Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration announces a meeting by teleconference of the Return to 
Flight Task Group (RTF TG).

DATES: Thursday, February 17, 2005, from 11 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. 
Central Standard Time.

ADDRESSES: The teleconference will originate from the Apollo Annex, 
Suite 101, 1740 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX, 77598.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Vincent D. Watkins at (281) 792-
7523.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public may monitor the teleconference 
audio from the Apollo Annex Room 175 up to the seating capacity of the 
meeting room. Attendees will be requested to sign a register. Audio of 
the teleconference will be distributed via the Internet at http://returntoflight.org.
    The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

--Welcome remarks from Co-Chair.
--Discussion of status of NASA's implementation of selected Columbia 
Accident Investigation Board return to flight recommendations.
--Action item summary from Executive Secretary.
--Closing remarks from Co-Chair.

    It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 05-2164 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P