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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE QUARTER ENDED APRIL 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,864
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,864
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          176,693
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       749,950
<OTHER-SE>                                   (924,779)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,864
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,639)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,639)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,639)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 68101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22324]



[[Page 68101]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-57,582 and TA-W-57,582A]


EPEC, LLC, New Bedford, MA, Including an Employee of EPEC, LLC, 
New Bedford, MA Located in Lake in Benson, NC; Amended Notice of 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance and Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility To Apply 
for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and a Negative 
Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on August 16, 2005, applicable to workers of 
EPEC, LLC, New Bedford, Massachusetts. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on September 8, 2005 (70 FR 53390).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows 
that a worker separation occurred involving an employee of the New 
Bedford, Massachusetts facility of EPEC, LLC located in Benson, North 
Carolina. Mr. Jeffrey Martin Hinman provided engineering support 
services for the production of printed circuit boards at the New 
Bedford, Massachusetts location of the subject firm.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include an employee of the New Bedford, Massachusetts 
facility of EPEC, LLC located in Benson, North Carolina.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of EPEC, LLC, New Bedford, Massachusetts, who were adversely 
affected by company imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-57,582 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of EPEC, LLC, New Bedford, Massachusetts (TA-W-
57,582), including an employee of EPEC, LLC, New Bedford, 
Massachusetts located in Benson, North Carolina (TA-W-57,582A), who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
July 15, 2004, through August 16, 2007, are eligible to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974;'' 
and

    I further determine that all workers of EPEC, LLC, New Bedford, 
Massachusetts, including an employee of EPEC, LLC, New Bedford, 
Massachusetts located in Benson, North Carolina are denied eligibility 
to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 
of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of October 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-22324 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-U
Exhibit 23



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
2-64879, 2-80037, 33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825,
33-58139, 33-58851, 33-64215, 33-64345, 333-8141; of Sears, Roebuck and Co.;
Registration Statement No. 333-9817 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears
Roebuck Acceptance Corp; Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775 and 333-18591
of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation
Plan; Registration Statement Nos. 33-57205 and 333-11973 of Sears Roebuck and
Co. and The Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees; and
Registration Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears DC
Corp.; of our report dated February 10, 1997, appearing in, and incorporated
by reference in, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for
the year ended December 28, 1996.


/S/Deloitte & Touche LLP
Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chicago, Illinois
March 24, 1997
### ND.03-14-00173- CR. IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS BRIAN TAYLOR § . V FROM APPEAL No .Q3-14-001 73-CR § S TRIAL COURT No .38660 

## THE STATE OF TEXAS § BURNET ,COUNTY
rs FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME TO FILE 

## PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW: OCT292015
To the Honorable 3udge of said court of criminal appeals:: "- •-•-'-^ 

### Comes now, BRIAN TAYLOR .petitioner, and files this motion for extention of ninety (9>0) days•=in which to file a pet

## FILEDiiM 

## ition for Discretionary Review. In support of t^s—mation,petitioner shows the court the following: npyon?~'--

I 

### AbelAcosta,Cierk The petitioner was convicted in the 424th th District court of 

## BURNET ,county Texas of the offence of INDECENCY WITH A CHILD BY CONTACT in case No. 3B660 CR styled STATE OF TEXAS Us.BRIAN TAYLOR . The petitioner appealed to the court of 

### appeals ^HIRD district. The case was nFFTRMFD on14th day of OCTOBER
II 

### The prBsehtndeadline for filing the petition for Discretionary 

## review is 14th day of NOVEMBER The petitioner has not requested any extention prior tP this request.Ill Prtitioner request for an extention is based upon the following facts: Petitioner was not notified of the decision of the court of 

### appeals in his case until _2_0 day ofOCTOBER . Petitioner attorney on appeal has informed petitioner that he/she will not represent him on the petition for Discretionary Review. Petitioner has been trying to obtain legal counsel for this matter.
Wherefore, petitioner prays this court grant this motion and extend the deadline for filing the petition for Discretionary 

### review in case Nol;03-14-0017g:RCRto 1 4th day of DECEMBER.

qnature // > sig 

## Orfa/? 'Tfca/tf

print name ' petitioner pro se 

## T.D.C.3. #/<7/<?/22_ Texas Department of Criminal Justice Bill Clements Unit 9601 spur 591 Amarillo Texas 79107-9606 r

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing first motion for extention of time to file petition for Discretionary Review has been forewarded by U.S. mail,postage prepaid, first class to the state prosecutor, P.O..Box 13046 Austin Texas, 7B711. 

# Onthis;.>;./ ifffl DayofOC^jfr
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument, and we therefore deny Spicer’s request for oral argument. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS O. SPICER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-56262

D.C. No. 2:07-cv-04973-AHMFFM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Thomas O. Spicer appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) action alleging the City

FILED

APR 20 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-56262

of Simi Valley discriminated against him by issuing him citations for illegal

parking. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,

Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004),

and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Spicer’s ADA

claim because, assuming Spicer was disabled within the meaning of the ADA, he

failed to raise a triable issue as to whether he was excluded from participating in,

or benefitting from, any service or program because of his disability. See McGary

v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1265 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing elements for a

claim under Title II of the ADA). To the extent Spicer seeks to overturn the state

court judgment, we lack jurisdiction pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).

Spicer’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50703 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JOE ALBERT SMITH, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:10-CR-59-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joe Albert Smith pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to evasion of payroll taxes and received a sentence of 60 months in prison to be followed by three years of supervis e d release. The district court also ordered Smith to make restitution in the amount of $27,784,11 2

. 35. On direct appeal, Smith argue s that his conviction and sentence should be vacated because the district court did not inform him that it was rejecting the written plea agreement and did not provide the proper Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f Ap p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 8, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat thisop inion should not * be publish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d circum st ance s se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-50703 Document: 00511752344 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2012No. 10-50703

when it imposed restitution in an amount greater than the amount specified in the plea agreement. He additionally argues that the Government breached the plea agreement and that the district court erred in imposing restitution as a part of his sentence and in calculating his restitution amount, in part, b a s e d on relevant conduct. After plain error review, we af f irmed Smith’s conviction and sentence; however, after concluding that the district court plainly erred by imposing restitution as a separate compone nt of Smith’s sentence and by relying on relevant conduct to calculate the restitution sum, we remanded the case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to deci d e wh eth er it wanted to order restitution as a condition of supervised release and, if so, how much. Upon remand, the district court entered an amended judgment, clarifying that it was ordering restitution in the amount of $5,057,119 a s a condition of supervised release. In the plea agreement, Smith agreed to pay $5,057,119 in restitution and also agreed that the restitution amount was the result of his fraudulent conduct. During the hearing on remand, Smith again acknowledged that $5,057,119 was the correct restitution amount. Because restitution may b e i mposed as a condition of supervised release under 18 U

. S.C. § 3583 if the sum of taxes has been acknowledged or conclusively established or is limited to th e u n d erlying offense of conviction, there is no error, plain or otherwise, in the district court’s amended restitution order. See United States v. Nolen , 523 F.3d 331, 332 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. N o len , 472 F.3d 362, 382 (5th Cir. 2006)

. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court as amended.

2 Case: 10-50703 Document: 00511752344 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statements of Operations for the Year Ended December 31, 1998 and the
Balance Sheet at December 31, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         396,599
<SECURITIES>                                    81,434
<RECEIVABLES>                                  360,639
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    108,496
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               949,450
<PP&E>                                         337,019
<DEPRECIATION>                                 317,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 969,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          763,055
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     10,000
<COMMON>                                       122,824
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   969,245
<SALES>                                      1,298,536
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,398,064
<CGS>                                          806,321
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,084,865
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                268,041
<INCOME-TAX>                                   244,256
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            244,256
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   244,256
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .01
        

</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5433 

To repeal certain provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act relating to the limitation on the Medicare exception to the prohibition 

on certain physician referrals for hospitals and to transparency reports 

and reporting of physician ownership or investment interests. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 27, 2010 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (for himself, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. OLSON, Mr. 

SAM JOHNSON of Texas, and Mr. BURGESS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 

addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal certain provisions of the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act relating to the limitation on the 

Medicare exception to the prohibition on certain physician referrals for hospitals and to transparency reports 

and reporting of physician ownership or investment interests. 

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


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5433 IH

1 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE PA2 TIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE 

3 ACT. 

4 Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protec5 tion and Affordable Care Act, sections 6001 and 10601 

6 (relating to limitation on the Medicare exception to the 

7 prohibition on certain physician referrals for hospitals) 

8 and section 6002 (relating to transparency reports and re9 porting of physician ownership or investment interests) of 

10 such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended 

11 or repealed by such sections are restored or revived as if 

12 such Act had not been enacted. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN



### Eonorable 1. D. Ratlfff, 

### Tr. County Attorney m&4Iuyt,
, Dear Sir:

Tour requ48t 

### ror captioned matter ha6 b44n quote 

### rror four lett4r a4 the h4nl@oYo IIdrprtm4nt. W4

I.410866 or the



### -publio amuarment om Sunday, nc4t1484 than twenty'nor,



### *article 207 of the pdnal Code in gart proYM481



### “‘The prekdlng Artiole shall not apply-- to motion plotUre shows, or theatree opelratedEonorab1.r L. D. SWUfi, foe, Y&@o 8
ia;~4~;ymf& sit7 

### br town, 

### after %
. w84a. es lko Oaeir8iour8 

### or City Cowsail or the tmm8 

### or olti48 lnwhbh ~14 motiOn pioture *how8 sr,tbaatre8 am 10~ oated rhull have t&a rigat ud porrr by proprr ordiwadr to prohibit or regul4ta tiho keep14 opoa 

### or ahowlns oi maoh mo, tioa piobpro 8bowa or 

### t&)rtra on Stmdy.~

"Q tn$$pQlf8 

### l (l) x8 s00tim a or 

### ati 889

0r the p 4tma Code l b6vo quotrd C4nrtftutiorull -(a) x6 60aqi08 a **or** mi010 se7 **0r** th0 Ponal Oodo abow quoted l raps& and valid dalegaaioa or power by thr Is **rlatura? s** 

**“ (8)**  **Un4.r &06Oion**  **8 or**  **Art1aaa 887**  **or tha**  **Jkaal Odle**  **abet. uwted**  **dou e**  **City Inn**  th4 

### power **to ’**  **&mDhiblt** mhe 

### operation **Or** a PDtfoa pisturs 8hw artier oae 0~0Iook P. 11.on 8ua&ay?* T&e quot44 pett1on **or** &?A410 me 4nQ ,3hOiirrt &mmgE@ QUDtclb

fter Ucti410 &81, **both r-**  **th0 h~61**  **Hobo, Qa&**  it a rtatutor~ Of30560 to 0*~0t0 motion **protare** 8h0wm 01~**tlwa** tar* 

### on sun4aybartar* lrO0 par. Aftor tbat boux. th4 @tat. law **Qo4B8**not prohibit ***how*** anA theater8 

### rrtm opclratQn&.

Under seati4a a of Artiolr ~381 quoted ruprs, the 2*$i*lattara

dologated to the anaioir da* the right -4 powor by proper ordlna&Oa to probib t 

### or rWUlat0 thm IMopLw og(lr

gr rhoriryg

oi 8uoh 8bows or theaters after UQO par oa c4unQay.

me aaaotiient

of Sunday laws 18 held to be 

### a grosnr 

### exercise or tb4 pouoo 'peer 

### or the Statoc The p4lzl04 ~parrs or th4 stat0 map 

### b4 QelegatoQ 

### ror a proprlats purpo*u to tb0 rarlou*larnfoipalitieC~ 9 Texas sur 8pru~mloe lp %cmMmt lkprtr Bower, (Grim. App.) 168 8. Yf. t$6@.

# a
#### STATE v. SHOOK

No. 17 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 749.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 31 January 1977.
#### STATE v. WADDELL

No. 5.

Reported: 282 N.C. 431.

Petition by Waddell to rehear denied 30 March 1973.
EXHIBIT 23





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board of Directors and Stockholders


First M&F Corporation


Kosciusko, Mississippi





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of First M&F Corporation on Form S-8 (Files No. 333-46590, No. 333-76615, No. 333-124050 and No. 333-124844) and Form S-3D (File No. 333-76611) of our report dated March 15, 2011, on our audit of the consolidated statement of condition of First M&F Corporation as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, which report is included in the December 31, 2010; annual report on Form 10-K of First M&F Corporation.





/s/ BKD, LLPJackson, MississippiMarch 15, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 68469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22484]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, Training Program in MR/DD.
    Date: November 16, 2005.
    Time: 11 a.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Room 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Carla T. Walls, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 
5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6898, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8cfbede0e0ffefcce1ede5e0a2e2e5e4a2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2057414c4c5343604d41494c0e4e49480e474f56">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 1, 2005.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-22484 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


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