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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000319037
<NAME> AW COMPUTER SYSTEMS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         919,621
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  118,347
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (39,967)
<INVENTORY>                                     56,589
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,291,459
<PP&E>                                         511,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,499,697
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,614,457
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,381
<OTHER-SE>                                     656,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,499,697
<SALES>                                      1,000,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,420,089
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,420,089
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,411,422
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              69,536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,861,863)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,861,863)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,861,863)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.71)
        

</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.R., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, CHICOPEE POST 

OFFICE, Chicopee, MA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0506

Issued: April 12, 2023

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 February 17, 2023 appellant filed an appeal from a March 15, 2022 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 23-0506.

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

(FECA).

1

 Fr 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 15, 2022 decision was September 11, 2022. As 

appellant did not file an appeal with the Board until February 17, 2023, more than 180 days after 

the March 15, 2022 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 23-0506 is 

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

her failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

compelling circumstances. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 

days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 23-

0506, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 23-0506 is dismissed.

Issued: April 12, 2023

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

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

§ 501.6(d).
# L_2013261DE.01003001.xml

| 3.10.2013 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 261/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2013

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 261/30

---

Berichtigung der Gemeinsamen Aktion 2007/405/GASP des Rates vom 12. Juni 2007 betreffend die Polizeimission der Europäischen Union im Rahmen der Reform des Sicherheitssektors und seine Schnittstelle zur Justiz in der Demokratischen Republik Kongo (EUPOL RD Congo)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 151 vom 13. Juni 2007
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 151 vom 13. Juni 2007

Im Titel auf Seite 46 und im Inhalt:

anstatt:

muss es heißen:

---
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5403 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to temporarily adjust the reimbursement 

rates for TRICARE claims in Alaska. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2010 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Defense to temporarily adjust 

the reimbursement rates for TRICARE claims in Alaska. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY ADJUSTMENT OF REIMBURSE4 MENT RATES FOR TRICARE CLAIMS IN ALAS5 KA. 

6 (a) TRICARE RATES.—Notwithstanding section 

7 1079(h) of title 10, United States Code, during the period 

8 beginning on October 1, 2010, and ending on September 

9 30, 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that pay10 ment for a charge for services by an individual health care 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5403 IH

1 professional (or other noninstitutional health care pro2 vider) located in Alaska for which a claim is submitted 

3 under a plan contracted for under section 1079(a) of such 

4 title shall be equal to an amount determined to be appro5 priate, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the 

6 same reimbursement rules as apply to payments for simi7 lar services under the VA Alaska Fee Schedule used by 

8 the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pursuant to section 

9 17.56(d) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations. 

10 (b) REPORT.—Not later than April 1, 2012, the Sec11 retary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 

12 committees (as defined in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, 

13 United States Code), a report on the rates for reimbursing 

14 TRICARE claims in Alaska, including a comparison of the 

15 rates paid during the period described in subsection (a) 

16 and the rates paid before such period. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# **Exhibit 4**

# ** **

**NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION**

**AND SUBSIDIARIES**

 

----

 

**INSTRUMENTS DEFINING RIGHTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS,**

**INCLUDING INDENTURES**

 

The following instruments of Navistar Financial Corporationdefining the rights of security holders are incorporated herein by reference:

 

4.1                 Credit Agreement for $820,000,000 Revolving Credit andCompetitive Advance Facility dated as of December 8, 2000, between theCorporation, Arrendadora Financiera Navistar, S.A. de C.V., ServiciosFinancieros Navistar, S.A. de C.V. and Navistar Comercial, S.A. de C.V., asborrowers, lenders party hereto, The Chase Manhattan Bank as AdministrativeAgent, Bank of America as Syndication Agent and Bank of Nova Scotia asDocumentation Agent.  Filed as Exhibit 10.05to Navistar Financial Corporation’s Form  10-Q dated March  15,2001.  Commission File No. 001-04146.

 

4.2                 Guarantee, dated as of December 8, 2000, made byNavistar, in favor of The Chase Manhattan Bank, as Administrative Agent, forthe lenders parties to the Credit Agreement, dated as of December 8, 2000,among Navistar Financial Corporation and Arrendadora Financiera Navistar, S.A.DE C.V., Servicios Financieros Navistar, S.A. DE C.V. and Navistar Comercial,S.A. DE C.V., the Lenders, Bank of America, N.A., as syndication agent, TheBank of Nova Scotia, as documentation agent, and the Administrative Agent.  Filed as Exhibit 10.07 to NavistarFinancial Corporation’s Form  10-Q dated March 15, 2001.  Commission File No. 001-04146.

 

4.3                 Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of March 25,2002, by and among the Corporation, Navistar, Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.and Banc of America Securities, LLC. Filed as Exhibit 4.2 to Form S-3 dated May 7, 2002.  Commission File No. 333-87716-01.

 

4.4                 First Amendment to the Credit Agreement dated as of December 8,2000, between the Corporation, Arrendadora Financiera Navistar, S.A. de C.V.,Servicios Financieros Navistar, S.A. de C.V., and Navistar Comercial, S.A. deC.V., as Borrowers, and the Chase Manhattan Bank, as Administrative Agent, Bankof America, N.A., as Syndication Agent, and the Bank of Nova Scotia, asDocumentation Agent, with respect to $820,000,000 Revolving Credit andCompetitive Advance Facility.  Filed as Exhibit 3.2to the Corporation’s Form 10-Q dated March 8, 2004.  Commission File No. 001-04146.

 

4.5                 First Supplement to Indenture, dated as of June 11,2004, by and among the Corporation, Navistar International Corporation and BNYMidwest Trust Company, as Trustee, for the Corporation’s 4.75% SubordinatedExchangeable Notes due 2009 for $220,000,000. Filed as Exhibit 4.6 to the Corporation’s Form 10-Q dated September 10,2004.  Commission File No. 001-04146.

 

----
EXHIBIT 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
   ZiLOG, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements(No. 333-108372, No. 333-114501, and
No. 333-114503) on Form S-8 of ZiLOG, Inc. of our report dated June 22, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of ZiLOG, Inc. as of
March 31, 2007, and March 31, 2006 and March 27, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
the twelve months ended March 31, 2007, March 31, 2006 and the three month transition period ended March 27, 2005, and the related financial
statement schedule, which report appears in the March 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-K of ZiLOG, Inc.

/s/    Armanino McKenna LLP

San Ramon, California
   June 22, 2007

---
Order entered November 1 8 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 010 42
- CR
JOE ANTHONY CORTEZ , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11
- 63290
- W



### O RDER
On June 4, 2013, we ordered the Dallas County District Clerk to prepare and file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court appointed attorney fees. The Dallas County Clerk subsequently filed a supplemental clerk’s record. However, the itemization of costs included in the supplemental record does not comply with the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art s . 103.001, 103.006 (West 2006). Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER , a second supplemental clerk’s record that contains a detailed itemization of t he costs assessed in this case that complies with article 103.001 and 103.006 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See id . arts. 103.001 (“A cost is not payableby the person charged with the cost until a written bill is produced or is ready to be pro duced,

containing the items of cost, signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost .”) (emphasis added), 103.006 (“if a criminal action or proceeding . . . is appealed, an officer of the court shal l certify and sign a bill of costs that have accrued and send the bill to the court in which the action or proceeding is . . . appealed) (emphasis added).
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Gary Fitzsimmons , Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of SoftNet Technology Corporation (the "Company"), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:			A. the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and			B. the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.Dated: March 21, 2006

/s/ James Farinella                              			James Farinella			Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

----
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5446 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5446

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as the ``Harry T. and 
                     Harriette Moore Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. HARRY T. AND HARRIETTE MOORE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harry T. 
and Harriette Moore Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 15, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5446

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 600 Florida Avenue in Cocoa, Florida, as the ``Harry T. and 
                     Harriette Moore Post Office''.
```
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CURTIS McDONALD HUGHES

No. 7521SC935

(Filed 7 April 1976)

Appeal by defendant from *Walker, Judge.*Judgment entered 11 June 1975 in Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 March 1976.

*184The defendant, Curtis McDonald Hughes, was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with the armed robbery of Ruby True in the amount of $63.65. The State’s evidence tended to show that on the night of 19 December 1974 the defendant and another man entered a store attended by Ruby True and robbed her at gunpoint of cash and cigarettes and that one of the men while leaving shot at Ruby True. Defendant’s evidence tended to establish an alibi for the time of the robbery.

From a verdict of guilty as charged and the imposition of a prison sentence of 15 to 18 years, defendant appealed.

*Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Alan S. Hirseh for the State.*

*R. Lewis Ray for defendant appellant.*

HEDRICK, Judge.

Defendant’s counsel concedes that he has been unable to find any error “of significance or consequence.” Nevertheless, we have carefully reviewed the record and find that the defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Morris and Arnold concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             324
<SECURITIES>                                         0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                       170
<INVENTORY>                                      4,358
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,647
<PP&E>                                          46,833
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,367
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,563
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            41
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,296
<SALES>                                         66,716
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,716
<CGS>                                           53,666
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   53,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,139
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    94
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,911
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,571
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,340
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (5,674)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,334)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# L_2007252DE.01000702.xml

| 27.9.2007 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 252/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2007

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 252/7

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1974/2006 der Kommission vom 15. Dezember 2006 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1698/2005 des Rates über die Förderung der Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums durch den Europäischen Landwirtschaftsfonds für die Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums (ELER)

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 368 vom 23. Dezember 2006
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 368 vom 23. Dezember 2006

Seite 25, Artikel 27 Absatz 7 Buchstabe c:

anstatt:

„Auslauf im Freien;“

muss es heißen:

„Zugang zu Auslauf im Freien;“.

---
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Watford City, ND, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0681

Issued: May 18, 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 March 15, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from an-October 18, 2018 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-0681.

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.2 

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.3

The 180th day following the October 18, 2018 decision was April 16, 2019. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until February 23, 2021, more than 180 days after the

 

1 The Board notes that appellant’s application for review (Form AB-1) requests an appeal from an August 24, 2020 

decision. The case record as transmitted to the Board, however, does not contain a decision dated August 24, 2020. 

The last decision of record is dated October 28, 2018. 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

3

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

October 18, 2018 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0681 is 

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

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.”

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0681 is dismissed.

Issued: May 18, 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

 

4

Id. at § 501.6(d).
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 27, 2010

p0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

140342

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140342 COA: 284887 Wayne CC: 07-020818-FC DEANGELO BENNETT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 17, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.