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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1995, AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR
THE PERIOD DECEMBER 31, 1995
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         837,918
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  408,952
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,246,870
<PP&E>                                       6,678,748
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,660,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,264,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,264,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,264,762
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,613,166
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,078
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,573,088
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1374 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the waiting periods 

for disability insurance benefits and Medicare coverage for individuals 

with metastatic breast cancer, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2019 

Ms. MCSALLY (for herself and Mr. MURPHY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

the waiting periods for disability insurance benefits and 

Medicare coverage for individuals with metastatic breast 

cancer, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Metastatic Breast Can5 cer Access to Care Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1374 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF WAITING PERIOD FOR INDIVID2 UALS WITH METASTATIC BREAST CANCER. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223 of the Social Security 

4 Act (42 U.S.C. 423) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (a)— 

6 (A) in paragraph (1), in the matter fol7 lowing subparagraph (E), by striking ‘‘or (ii)’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘(ii) in the case of an individual 

9 who has been medically determined to have 

10 metastatic breast cancer, for each month begin11 ning with the first month during all of which 

12 the individual is under a disability and in which 

13 the individual becomes entitled to such insur14 ance benefits, or (iii)’’; and 

15 (B) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting ‘‘or 

16 (iii)’’ after ‘‘clause (ii)’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply with respect to applications for dis19 ability insurance benefits filed after the date of the enact20 ment of this Act. 

21 SEC. 3. WAIVER OF 24-MONTH WAITING PERIOD FOR MEDI22 CARE COVERAGE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH 

23 METASTATIC BREAST CANCER. 

24 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 226(h) of the Social Secu25 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 426(h)) is amended by inserting ‘‘or 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•S 1374 IS

1 metastatic breast cancer’’ after ‘‘amyotrophic lateral scle2 rosis (ALS)’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to benefits for months beginning 

5 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# L_2008011DE.01002302.xml

| 15.1.2008 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 11/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2008

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 11/23

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1324/2007 der Kommission vom 12. November 2007 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2535/2001 mit Durchführungsbestimmungen zur Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1255/1999 des Rates zur Einfuhrregelung für Milch und Milcherzeugnisse und zur Eröffnung der betreffenden Zollkontingente

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 294 vom 13. November 2007
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 294 vom 13. November 2007

Seite 14, Artikel 1 Ziffer 3, geänderter Artikel 14 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2535/2001, Buchstabe b:

anstatt:

| „ ‚b) | vom 1. bis 10. Juni des Jahres für Einfuhren in dem Zeitraum vom 1. Juli bis 31. Dezember des folgenden Jahres.‘;“; |
| --- | --- |

„ ‚b)

vom 1. bis 10. Juni des Jahres für Einfuhren in dem Zeitraum vom 1. Juli bis 31. Dezember des folgenden Jahres.‘;“;

muss es heißen:

| „ ‚b) | vom 1. bis 10. Juni des Jahres für Einfuhren in dem Zeitraum vom 1. Juli bis 31. Dezember desselben Jahres.‘;“. |
| --- | --- |

„ ‚b)

vom 1. bis 10. Juni des Jahres für Einfuhren in dem Zeitraum vom 1. Juli bis 31. Dezember desselben Jahres.‘;“.

---
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 12
                         JOSTENS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES (UNAUDITED)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                    Six months
                                             Nine months ended               Years ended              ended         Years ended
                                         ------------------------  -------------------------------- -----------  -----------------
                                         September 30, October 2,  January 1, January 2, January 3, December 28, June 30,  June 30,
Dollars in thousands                          2000        1999        2000      1999       1998        1996       1996       1995
----------------------------------------------------------------   ------------------------------   ------------------------------
<S>                                         <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Earnings
Income (loss) from continuing operations
before income taxes                         $ (2,249)   $ 67,520   $ 74,659   $ 83,520   $ 93,383   $     26   $ 87,479   $ 93,893

Interest expense and amortization of debt
expense (excluding capitalized interest)      37,666       4,333      7,486      7,026      6,866      4,330      9,403      5,452

Portion of rent expense under
long-term operating leases
representative of an interest factor             891       1,087      1,483      1,233      2,133      1,070      2,103      2,100

----------------------------------------------------------------   ------------------------------   ------------------------------
Total earnings                              $ 36,308    $ 72,940   $ 83,628   $ 91,779   $102,382   $  5,426   $ 98,985   $101,445
================================================================   ==============================   ==============================

Fixed charges
Interest expense and amortization of debt
expense (including capitalized interest)    $ 37,666    $  4,734   $  7,887   $  7,729   $  6,866   $  4,330   $  9,403   $  5,452

Portion of rent expense under
long-term operating leases
representative of an interest factor             891       1,087      1,483      1,233      2,133      1,070      2,103      2,100

----------------------------------------------------------------   ------------------------------   ------------------------------
Total fixed charges                         $ 38,557    $  5,821   $  9,370   $  8,962   $  8,999   $  5,400   $ 11,506   $  7,552
================================================================   ==============================   ==============================

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges               0.9        12.5        8.9       10.2       11.4        1.0        8.6       13.4

</TABLE>
#### Daljit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70033, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Daljit Singh, Sacramento, CA, pro se.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Shelley R. Goad, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM***

Daljit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of *877discretion, *Garcia v. INS,*222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th Cir.2000), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA properly held that Singh’s motion to reopen was untimely because Singh filed it more than five months after the final administrative decision. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (generally requiring that a motion to reopen be filed within 90 days after a final decision is rendered). Moreover, as the BIA mailed its April 11, 2003 decision to the last address provided by Singh’s counsel, Singh’s claim that he did not have sufficient notice of the decision fails. *See Farhoud v. INS,*122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997) (finding notice sent by regular mail to last address provided by alien satisfies requirements of constitutional due process); *Urbina-Osejo v. INS,*124 F.3d 1314, 1317 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that where notice was sent via constitutionally adequate method, petitioner must present “substantial and probative evidence” that there was improper delivery or that nondelivery was not due to the petitioner’s failure to provide an address).

We do not reach Singh’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to raise it before the BIA. *See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS,*213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2024-0208

_____________________________

LORENZO BROOKS,

Appellant,

v.

RICKY D. DIXON, Secretary, 

Florida Department of 

Corrections,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County.

Melissa G. Olin, Judge.

August 28, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Lorenzo Brooks seeks review of the trial court’s order denying 

in part and dismissing in part his petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, in which he challenged being placed on close management 

status. As to the trial court’s dismissal of ground three in the 

habeas petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, we 

affirm without further comment. However, for purposes of the 

trial court’s denial of grounds one and two, we treat the appeal as 

a petition invoking our certiorari jurisdiction and deny the petition 

on the merits. See Thomas v. State, Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 89 So. 3d 

300, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (treating the proceeding as an appeal 

of the trial court’s dismissal of certain mandamus claims for failure 
2

to exhaust administrative remedies but reviewing the trial court’s 

denial on the merits of the remaining claims under the “higher 

certiorari standard”); see also Owens v. Jones, 200 So. 3d 1289, 

1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); Williams v. Tucker, 87 So. 3d 1270, 1271 

(Fla. 1st DCA 2012). 

AFFIRMED in part and DENIED on the merits in part. 

OSTERHAUS, C.J., and LEWIS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Lorenzo Brooks, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee; Charles T. Martin 

Jr., Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of 

Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
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 on Form 10-Q of Jaclyn,  Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal quarter ended  December 31, 2007 (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned  each hereby  certifies that: (1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended; and (2) the information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: February 14, 2008                      /s/Robert Chestnov
                                              ------------------
                                              Robert Chestnov, President
                                              (Chief Executive Officer)

Dated: February 14, 2008                      /s/Anthony Christon
                                              -------------------
                                              Anthony Christon, Chief Financial
                                              Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Jaclyn,  Inc. and will be retained by Jaclyn,  Inc. and forwarded to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          18,955
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,753
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,088
<INVENTORY>                                     53,177
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,767
<PP&E>                                          32,429
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,761
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 186,041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,347
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,586
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   186,041
<SALES>                                         60,441
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,441
<CGS>                                           48,354
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,321
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (249)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,709
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    786
<INCOME-TAX>                                       753
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                297
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       297
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
#### UNITED CIGAR STORES COMPANY OF AMERICA, PROSECUTOR, v. STATE TAX COMMISSIONER AND STATE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS, DEFENDANTS.

Argued May 4, 1932

Decided June 15, 1932.

Before Justices Pabiceb, Campbell and Lloyd.

For the prosecutor, *Waldron M. Ward.*

For the defendants, *John J. Solan (William A.*Stevens, attorney-general, on the brief).

Pee Cueiam.

This is an application for a *certiorari*to review the annual franchise tax for 1931 as assessed against the prosecutor and affirmed by the state board of tax appeals: a prior application to a single justice having been denied by him. No facts are in dispute, and the controversy in law relates to the proper construction of the amendment of 1920 *(Pamph. L., p.*339) to the Corporation Tax act, as further amended in 1921 *(Pamph. L., p.*975), so far as this legislation applies to corporations having both par value and no par value stock.

At the argument it was agreed by counsel in open court that if this court should consider that a writ should be allowed, the court might take up and decide the case as if such writ had been allowed and returned, and as though the case had been argued on final hearing.

We are clear that the decision of the state board was right, and think that the full and careful opinion of President Weaver in the similar case of *North American Co.*v. *State Tax Commissioner,*unofficially reported in 55 *N. J. L. J.*86 (March, 1932), covers the ground thoroughly and satisfactorily. The state board relied on that opinion in deciding the present ease (55 *N. J. L. J.*89), and we deem it needless to add anything here at this time.

*762In view of this result, *allocatur*might well be denied and the litigation thereby be stopped at this point; but as the matter is one of importance, we think the better course is to permit of an appeal to the court of last resort. To that end a writ will be allowed and returned pursuant to the stipulation of counsel, and the judgment of the state board will be affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of THE ESTATE OF MINNIE MORGAN MARKS, Deceased.

(Filed 1 May 1963.)

Executors and Administrators § 4—

Upon the revocation of the probate in this State of the will of a nonresident, it is proper for the clerk to revoke bis order appointing as administrators c. t. a. the persons named executors in the purported will, since the cleric may not appoint persons to administer an estate as directed by a writing until that writing has been here established as a will.

Appeal by petitioners from *Riddle, S.J.,*October 22, 1962 Special Civil Term of MeckleNbueg.

*Clayton & London by O. W. Clayton for petitioner appellee.*

*Blakeney, Alexander & Machen by Ernest W. Machen, Jr., for appellants.*

*333Rodman, J.

This is a 'companion case to *In re Will of Marks,*ante, 326. The facts are there stated. The February writing, which was there held not entitled to probate until the writing previously probated had been successfully 'attacked by .caveat, named petitioners Mary Schulhofer and Arthur Sohulhofer as executrix and executor. When they sought to probate the February writing, they likewise prayed for the appointment of ancillary administrators. They gave bond as required by G.S. 28-186 and were, on 23 May 1961, issued letters c.t.a.

The clerk, in his order of 12 April 1962, revoked the probate of the paper naming petitioners as executors and likewise revoked the order appointing them as administrators c.t.a.

Manifestly the clerk’s order, which was affirmed by the judge, was correct because the writing dated in February 1961 had not been established in North Carolina as Mrs. Marks’ will. Petitioners could not here administer an estate as directed by a writing until that writing bad been here established as a will.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         15,479 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                 370,177 
<ALLOWANCES>                                   36,533 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              349,123 
<PP&E>                                        597,354 
<DEPRECIATION>                                342,767 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                650,473 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         204,905 
<BONDS>                                             0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                    1,223,484 
<OTHER-SE>                                          0 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  650,473 
<SALES>                                       111,727 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              119,781 
<CGS>                                               0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 192,549 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   12 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              6,242 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (72,769)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0 
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                  (72,769)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.047)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.047)
        

</TABLE>