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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1996
<CASH>                                           8,152
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  110,564
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,994)
<INVENTORY>                                    237,307
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               361,195
<PP&E>                                         188,536
<DEPRECIATION>                                (53,039)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 515,589
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,383
<BONDS>                                        296,786
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,901
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   515,589
<SALES>                                        764,030
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               764,030
<CGS>                                          545,490
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  545,490
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               196,408
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,547
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,151)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,569)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,582)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,582)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### SWAIM v. VESTAL

No. 144 PC.

Case below: 29 N.C. App. 186.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 17 June 1976.
#### DAVIS v. DAVIS

No. 537P82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 25.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 November 1982.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SCIVANTAGE, INC., 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

WOLTERS KLUWER N.V., WOLTERS 

KLUWER, N.A., WOLTERS KLUWER 

FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., CCH 

INCORPORATED, CHRISTOPHER A. 

CARTWRIGHT, BRIAN LONGE, BRUCE LENZ, 

DAVID STEPHENS, CHARLES ROSS, JOSEPH 

HONOR, and JOHN DOES 1-10, 

 

 Defendants. 

 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| No. 07cv3329 

| Electronically Filed 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

| 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF BRIAN J. FISCHER

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

 Please enter my appearance as counsel of record in this matter for defendants Wolters 

Kluwer N.V., Wolters Kluwer, N.A., Wolters Kluwer Financial Services, Inc., CCH 

Incorporated, Christopher A. Cartwright, Brian Longe, Bruce Lenz, David Stephens, Charles 

Ross, and Joseph Honor. 

 I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. 

 Dated: May 1, 2007 JENNER & BLOCK LLP 

s/Brian J. Fischer 

Brian J. Fischer (BF-4303) 

919 Third Avenue 

37th Floor 

New York, New York 10022 

Tel: (212) 891-1600 

Fax: (212) 891-1699 

Attorneys for Defendants Wolters Kluwer 

N.V., Wolters Kluwer, N.A., Wolters Kluwer 

Financial Services, Inc., CCH Incorporated, 

Christopher A. Cartwright, Brian Longe, 

Bruce Lenz, David Stephens, Charles Ross, 

and Joseph Honor

Case 1:07-cv-03329-HB Document 5 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Harry Sandick, hereby certify that on May 1, 2007, I caused to be served copies of 

the foregoing Notice of Appearance of Brian J. Fischer upon counsel on the service list below 

by ECF. 

SERVICE LIST 

Richard J. Rubin 

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Field LLP 

590 Madison Avenue 

New York, NY 10022 

Attorneys for plaintiff 

Case 1:07-cv-03329-HB Document 5 Filed 05/01/2007 Page 2 of 2
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## News Release

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# USS Oklahoma Sailor Accounted For From World War II (Tushla, L.)

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1422 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1422

To transfer revenues from the net investment income tax to the Federal 
                     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 13, 2019

   Mr. Casey introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To transfer revenues from the net investment income tax to the Federal 
                     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `` Strengthening the Medicare Trust 
Fund Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF NET INVESTMENT INCOME TAX REVENUES TO THE FEDERAL 
              HOSPITAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND.

    Section 1817(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i(a)) is 
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by striking 
the period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting ``; and'', and by 
inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) the taxes imposed by section 1411 of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year beginning after 
        December 31, 2018, as determined by the Secretary of the 
        Treasury or the Secretary's delegate based on tax returns under 
        subtitle F of such Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Past Conflicts             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns             
  -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Livestreams             
  -  Year In Review             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  Volunteer		 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.01 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### GOFORTH v. GOFORTH

No. 175 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 554.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 15 July 1980. Appeal dismissed 15 July 1980.
#### MARVIN PHILLIP KABASE and JOHN DePASQUALE, Appellants, v. SHERIFF, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 11037

September 28, 1978

584 P.2d 682

*Goodman, Oshins, Brown & Singer,*and *Stephen Stein,*Las Vegas, for Appellants.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *George E. Holt,*District Attorney, and *Raymond Jeffers,*Chief Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This appeal is from an order denying a pretrial habeas challenge to an indictment which charged appellants with embezzlement, swindling, conspiracy and evasion of gaming taxes.

*619The only issue of merit concerns the count charging appellants with evasion of gaming taxes, in violation of NRS 463.360(2). Appellants contend their alleged conduct did not constitute the crime of tax evasion. We agree.

NRS 463.360(2) provides, in pertinent part: “Any person who willfully fails to report, pay or truthfully account for and pay over any license fee or tax imposed by the provisions of this chapter, or willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any such license fee, tax or payment thereof shall be punished.

The transcript of the proceedings before the grand jury contains evidence that appellants, while employed by the Fremont Hotel in Las Vegas, participated in a scheme to mark race and sports book tickets with the winning horses or sports teams after the outcome or winner of the horse race or sporting event had been determined; and, thereafter received monies for having done those acts. This evidence, if true, is sufficient to support the felony charges of embezzlement and swindling and the gross misdemeanor charge of conspiracy to commit those two offenses; however, it does not support the tax evasion charge.

In United States v. Mesheski, 286 F.2d 345 (7th Cir. 1961), the Internal Revenue Service attempted, under a substantially identical statute (26 U.S.C. § 7201), to obtain a conviction against a person who prepared tax returns for others and diverted to his own personal use money obtained from taxpayers for transmittal to the Director of Internal Revenue. In reversing a judgment of conviction, the United States Court of Appeal ruled that “defendant’s reprehensible actions, designed to hinder detection of the strictly local crime of embezzlement, do not constitute such affirmative conduct as clearly and reasonably infers a motive to evade or defeat tax.” *Id.*at 347. *See*United States v. Pomponio 429 U.S. 10 (1976); Spies v. United States 317 U.S. 492 (1943). Appellants’ alleged conduct is within the quoted language from *Mesheski.*Accordingly, the district judge should have granted the habeas challenge to the tax evasion charge. The portion of the order which failed to do so is reversed. The remainder of the order is affirmed.
#### STATE v. McNAIR

No. 140.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 555.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss defendant’s appeal allowed 3 June 1980.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,981
<OTHER-SE>                                    (75,981)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<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>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1486
THOMAS C. SMITH, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN AIR FORCE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-04-121-4) Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: June 28, 2005 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas C. Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Susan Lynn Watt, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Thomas C. Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Smith v. United States of Am. Air Force , No. CA-04-121-4 (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 9 & entered Feb. 10, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.1


                   Report of Ernst & Young LLP


We have audited the balance sheets of IMC-Agrico Company (a
Partnership) as of December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993, and June 30,
1995 and 1994 and the related statements of earnings, changes in
partners' capital and cash flows for the six-month periods ended
December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993, and the years ended June 30,
1995 and 1994 (not presented separately herein).  These financial
statements are the responsibility of IMC-Agrico Company's
management.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement.  An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating
the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that
our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position
of IMC-Agrico Company as of December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993, and
June 30, 1995 and 1994 and the results of its operations and its
cash flows for the six-month periods ended December 31, 1995,
1994 and 1993 and the years ended June 30, 1995 and 1994 in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.





                                         /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                         ---------------------
                                         ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Chicago, Illinois
January 15, 1996
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. RENE M AR TINEZ-ENC INAS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 11-10282

D.C . No. 4:04-c r-01418-DC B M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Wm . Fre m

m ing Nie lse n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding * * Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 15, 2013 *** B e fore : SILVERM AN, B EA, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. R e ne M a rtine z -Enc ina s a

ppe a ls from the judgm e nt re voking supervise d re le a se and the 46-m o nth se nte nc e im pose d upon re voc ation. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . 

# FIL ED JAN 16 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Wm . Fre m

m ing Nie lse n , Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion. *** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), M artine z -Enc ina s ’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f sta ting tha t the re are n o grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra wa s c ounse l of re c ord. M artine z -Enc ina s ha s file d a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. The gove rnm e nt ha s not file d a n a nswe ring brie f. Our inde pe nde nt re v i e w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f on dire c t a ppe a l. C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. The gove rnm e nt’ s m otion to dism iss this a ppe a l is D E NIE D. AFFIRM E D.

1 1 - 1 0 2 8 2 2
#### STATE v. ASHFORD

No. 35 PC.

Case below: 7 N.C. App. 320.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 April 1970.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**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 the Annual Report of Lattice Incorporated (the "Company") on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joe
      Noto, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




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




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




September
                13, 2007
            /s/
                Joe NotoJoe
                NotoChief
                Financial Officer