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

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-25-2000
<CASH>                                              34
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      834
<ALLOWANCES>                                        32
<INVENTORY>                                        712
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,650
<PP&E>                                           2,395
<DEPRECIATION>                                     992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,253
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,603
<BONDS>                                            710
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,253
<SALES>                                          3,882
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,882
<CGS>                                            3,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   151
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    12
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  21
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     56
<INCOME-TAX>                                        21
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 35
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (15)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        20
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE HANOVER
DIRECT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND
STATEMENTS OF INCOME FOR THE TWELEVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 27, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN IT ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                          14,758
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,358)
<INVENTORY>                                     64,330
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,757
<PP&E>                                          82,164
<DEPRECIATION>                                (29,712)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 230,299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,187
<BONDS>                                         32,735
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,938
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       136,294
<OTHER-SE>                                    (66,681)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   230,299
<SALES>                                        557,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               557,638
<CGS>                                          358,219
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  559,487
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,973
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,028
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,877)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       999
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,876)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,876)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.06)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2

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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Earle M. Jorgensen Company ("EMJ") for the period ended September 27, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William S. Johnson, as Chief Financial Officer of EMJ, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)  Information
contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of EMJ.

|Date: November 5, 2002                                                                        |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                                                              |  | 
|/s/WILLIAM S. JOHNSONWilliam S. Johnson
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary |  | 
|                                                                                              |  | 

---

QuickLinks
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, BRICK POST 

OFFICE, Brick, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0688

Issued: May 2, 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

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On March 14, 2022 appellant filed an appeal from an October 5, 2017 merit decision of 

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

assigned Docket No. 22-0688.

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 October 5, 2017 decision was April 3, 2018. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until March 14, 2022, more than 180 days after the

October 5, 2017 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0688 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. Because there is no final adverse decision issued by 

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

OWCP within 180 days of the filing of the instant appeal, the Board concludes that the appeal 

docketed as No. 22-0688, must be dismissed.3 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0688 is dismissed.

Issued: May 2, 2022

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, 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).
J. 

to his extreme detriment. See id. Therefore, we conclude that the district 

court did not err in denying appellant's motion. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2 

Hardesty 

'°17179/1 Douglas 

J. 

cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge 

Frank J. Matylinsky, Jr. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

2We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A en
#### RUSSELL *G.*SIMMONS v. LEON EDWARDS

No. 682SC317

(Filed 5 February 1969)

Appeal and Error §§ 39, 44— failure to aptly docket appeal and file brief

Appeal is dismissed for failure to file a brief within the time required by Rule *28*and for failure to docket the appeal within the time prescribed by Rule 5.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Cohoon, J.,*April 1968 Session Superior Court Of TYRRELL.

This is a civil action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained as the result of an automobile collision.

At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, defendant moved for a judgment as of nonsuit. The motion was allowed, and plaintiff appeals.

*Jones, Jones and Jones by*L. *Bennett Gram, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.*

*Bailey and Bailey by Carl L. Bailey, Jr., for defendant appellee.*

Morris, J.

Appellant has failed to comply with Rule 28 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina by his failure to file his brief within the time required. Defendant, in apt time, before the brief was filed, and in accordance with Rule 28, moved to dismiss the appeal. On the day after appellant filed his brief, he filed a petition for extension of time for filing brief to and including the day the brief was actually filed. In addition to noncomplianee with Rule 28, appellant also failed to comply with Rule 5 in that he did not docket his appeal in this Court within the time prescribed. For failure to comply with the Rules of Practice in this Court, the appeal is dismissed. Despite these circumstances, we have examined the record and the evidence presented and we find no error in the ruling of the trial tribunal.

Appeal dismissed.

Mallard, C.J., and Campbell, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67461-67462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22118]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of Fossil Energy; National Coal Council

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Charter Renewal.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory

[[Page 67462]]

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and in accordance with title 41 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations, section 102-3.65, and following 
consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat of the General 
Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the National Coal 
Council has been renewed for a two-year period ending November 1, 2007. 
The Council will continue to provide advice, information, and 
recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on a continuing basis 
regarding general policy matters relating to coal issues.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Council members are chosen to assure a well-balanced representation 
from all sections of the country, all segments of the coal industry, 
including large and small companies, and commercial and residential 
consumers. The Council also has diverse members who represent interests 
outside the coal industry, including environmental interests, labor 
research, and academia. Membership and representation of all interests 
will continue to be determined in accordance with the requirements of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and implementing regulations.
    The renewal of the Council has been determined essential to the 
conduct of the Department's business and in the public interest in 
connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Department 
of Energy by law. The Council will continue to operate in accordance 
with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 
implementing regulations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel M. Samuel at 202/586-3279.

    Issued at Washington, DC on November 1, 2005.
James N. Solit,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-22118 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
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



In connection with this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Earle M. Jorgensen Company (EMJ) for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Maurice S. Nelson, Jr., as
Chief Executive Officer of EMJ, and I, William S. Johnson, as Chief Financial Officer of EMJ, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | (2) | Information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of EMJ as of and for the periods covered in this
Report.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: February 10, 2005



/s/ Maurice S. Nelson, Jr.

Maurice S. Nelson, Jr.

President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Operating Officer



/s/ William S. Johnson

William S. Johnson

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
another document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Earle M. Jorgensen Company and will
be retained by Earle M. Jorgensen Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request. The foregoing certification is accompanying the Form 10-Q solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350), Chapter 63 of title 18 United States Code and is not being filed as a part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5538 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5538

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit Federal funding for 
    the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 2012.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 2010

 Mr. Lamborn (for himself, Mr. Akin, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Bartlett, Mrs. 
Blackburn, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Gohmert, 
   Mr. Jordan of Ohio, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Neugebauer, and Mr. Linder) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit Federal funding for 
    the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 2012.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC 
              BROADCASTING AFTER FISCAL YEAR 2012.

    (a) In General.--Section 396 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 396) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(n) Prohibition on Federal Funds After Fiscal Year 2012.--No 
Federal funds may be made available to the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting after fiscal year 2012.''.
    (b) Corporation Prohibited From Accepting Federal Funds.--
Subsection (g) of such section is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``subject to 
        paragraph (3)(C),'' before ``obtain''; and
            (2) in paragraph (3)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``; and'' and 
                inserting a semicolon;
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at 
                the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following new 
                subparagraph:
                    ``(C) accepting funds from the Federal Government 
                after fiscal year 2012.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further amended--
            (1) in subsection (k)(3)(A)(iv)(II), by inserting ``through 
        fiscal year 2012'' after ``amounts received''; and
            (2) in subsection (m)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``through fiscal 
                year 2012'' after ``every three years thereafter''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``and through 
                fiscal year 2012,'' after ``1989,''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CLYDE L. ENLOE, Appellant, v. WILLIAM BLAIN and WANDA BLAIN, dba W. E. BLAIN WELL DRILLING COMPANY, Respondents.

No. 8965

April 17, 1978

577 P.2d 60

*199*Eck & Harkins, Ltd.*and *Nicolaus R. Harkins,*Carson City, for Appellant.

*Legarza, Lee, Barengo & Doyle,*and *Keith L. Lee,*Reno, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Clyde L. Enloe appeals from a judgment denying his claim for monies due under a contract, contending respondents unjustifiably prevented completion of his work. We disagree.

Respondents employed appellant to drill wells. The district court found appellant assumed the responsibility to complete a *200well before payment was due, but appellant contends he was excused from further performance because respondents prevented completion and thereby breached the contract. According to appellant, prevention occurred because respondents provided him with a defective welder, caused drilling to cease when a casing snapped, and failed to notify appellant when well drilling operations resumed.

In order for a party to prevent completion there must be “acts, conduct, or declarations of the party, evincing a clear intention to repudiate the contract, and to treat it as no longer binding, ...” Claudianos v. Friedhoff, 69 Nev. 41, 46, 240 P.2d 208, 210 (1952). Here, testimony indicated appellant had the duty to discover and report defective machinery. The record is devoid of any evidence tending to show that respondents deliberately provided a defective welder, or that they were even aware of the defect until after the casing snapped. Under such circumstances, the district court was not required to infer that respondents had repudiated the contract.

Although an employer may have an affirmative duty to notify an employee when work is resumed on a project, and although failure to do so may constitute prevention, *cf. Clau-dianos,*cited above, there is evidence that appellant led respondents to believe he had another job in Oregon, and had quit the project. Thus, the court could find respondent’s duty to notify appellant, once work resumed, was excused by appellant’s own act of repudiation.

Affirmed.1

1

The Governor designated the Honorable Paul Goldman, Judge of the Eighth Judicial District, to sit in place of The Honorable Gordon Thompson, Justice, who was disabled. Nev. Const, art. 6, §4.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 22, 2021

No. 04-20-00438-CV

IN RE Luis and Olga ORTIZ and J.E.N., a minor child

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-099-CIV

Honorable Enrique Fernandez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice - not participating

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice 

Luz Elena Chapa, Justice

Real Party In Interest’s motion for rehearing is DENIED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

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

court on this 22nd day of March, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
# L_2007091EN.01001601.xml

| 31.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 91/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 91/16

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 368/2007

of 30 March 2007

on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector (apples)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 of 8 October 2001 on detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables (2), and in particular Article 6(6) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 134/2007 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 134/2007 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued.

| (2) | In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for apples will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for apples will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector.

| (3) | To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for apples after 30 March 2007 should be rejected until the end of the current export period, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for apples after 30 March 2007 should be rejected until the end of the current export period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for system B export licences for apples submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 134/2007, export declarations for which are accepted after 30 March and before 1 July 2007, are hereby rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 31 March 2007.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 March 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 64).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 42, 14.2.2007, p. 16, as corrected by OJ L 52, 21.2.2007, p. 12.

3

---