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


<ARTICLE>                        5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                              83,019
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      288,672
<ALLOWANCES>                                         6,501
<INVENTORY>                                         35,299
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   576,100
<PP&E>                                             362,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                     197,821
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,482,675
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              724,700
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             3,350
<OTHER-SE>                                         488,852
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,482,675
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   352,523
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      277,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    115,568
<INCOME-TAX>                                        32,716
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 82,852
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        82,852
<EPS-BASIC>                                          .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .27



</TABLE>
#### STATE v. FRANK SIMMONS, Alias “GEECH.”

(Filed 16 April, 1930.)

Criminal Law G e — Testimony in this case should have been excluded under'the hearsay rule.

Where there is evidence that the prisoner on trial for murder was at the time of the killing with another stealing .chickens,' testimony of a statement .made by the other person in the absence of the prisoner that the prisoner had done the killing is incompetent as hearsay, and its admission upon the trial over the objection of the accused, is' reversible error.

Appeal by defendant from *Moore, J.,*at November Criminal Term, 1929, of Guileobd. .

Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the prisoner with the murder of one W. T. Bowman.

From an adverse verdict and sentence of death by electrocution entered thereon, the prisoner appeals, assigning errors.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*Spencer B. Adams and Wm. B.*Comer *for defendant.*

. Stáoy, C. J.

The evidence on behalf of the State tends to, show that on the night of 24 February, 1927, the prisoner and one Perry White were out “chicken thieving”; that they came upon Deputy Sheriff W. T. *600Bowman wbo bad secreted bimself in the dark watching for prowlers or marauders; and that one of them shot and killed the officer.

Charles Fields was permitted to testify and repeat it several times, over objection of the prisoner, that soon after the shooting he arrested Perry White, who told him that Frank Simmons was the one who did the shooting. The court referred specifically to this evidence in its charge and instructed the jury to consider it.

This evidence was incompetent as against the prisoner, who was not present at the time the statement was made, and should have been excluded on objections duly entered in apt time. *S. v. Green,*193 N. C., 302, 136 S. E., 729.

It is a rule, too firmly established to admit of debate, that the declaration of a third person, not an agent of the party sought to be affected, made in the absence of such party, is inadmissible as hearsay. *Daniel v. Dixon,*161 N. C., 377, 77 S. E., 305.

Speaking to the question in *S. v. Lassiter,*191 N. C., 210, 131 S. E., 577, *Brogden, J.,*delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “The inherent vice of hearsay testimony consists in the fact that it derives its value, not from the credibility of the witness himself, but depends upon the veracity and credibility of some other person from whom the witness got his information.” This is the general rule, supported by all the authorities on the subject. There are, of course, certain exceptions to the rule, not now necessary to be considered, as the evidence here complained of falls under none of them. *S. v. Blakeney,*194 N. C., 651, 140 S. E., 433.

For the error, as indicated, there must be a new trial, and it is so ordered.

New trial.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3315 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require disclosure to 

States of the basis of determinations under that Act, to ensure use 

of information provided by State, Tribal, and local governments in decision making under that Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 6, 2021 

Ms. LUMMIS (for herself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. CRAPO, and Mr. RISCH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require 

disclosure to States of the basis of determinations under 

that Act, to ensure use of information provided by State, 

Tribal, and local governments in decision making under 

that Act, 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 ‘‘State, Tribal, and 

5 Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3315 IS

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING DECISIONAL TRANSPARENCY WITH AF2 FECTED STATES. 

3 Section 6(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

4 (16 U.S.C. 1535(a)) is amended— 

5 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘In car6 rying out’’ and inserting the following: 

7 ‘‘(1) In carrying out’’; and 

8 (2) in paragraph (1) (as so designated), in the 

9 second sentence, by striking ‘‘Such cooperation shall 

10 include’’ and inserting the following: 

11 ‘‘(2) Cooperation under paragraph (1) shall include— 

12 ‘‘(A) before making a determination under sec13 tion 4(a), providing to States affected by that deter14 mination all data that is the basis of the determina15 tion; and 

16 ‘‘(B)’’. 

17 SEC. 3. ENSURING USE OF STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL IN18 FORMATION. 

19 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3 of the Endangered Spe20 cies Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is amended— 

21 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through 

22 (21) as paragraphs (3) through (22), respectively; 

23 and 

24 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol25 lowing: 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3315 IS

1 ‘‘(2) The term ‘best scientific and commercial data 

2 available’ includes all of the best available scientific and 

3 commercial data submitted by a State, Tribal, or local gov4 ernment.’’. 

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 7(n) of the 

6 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536(n)) is 

7 amended, in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘, as defined 

8 by section 3(13) of this Act,’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 23


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-8 (Registration Nos. 33-52882, 33-61530, 33-71984,
33-82196, 33-96426 and 333-10889) and Forms S-3 (Registration Nos. 33-69544,
33-99528, 333-09927 and 333-14555), of our report dated on January 29, 1997 on
the financial statements included in the annual report on Form 10-K of Magainin
Pharmaceuticals Inc. as at and for the year ended December 31, 1996.



/s/ Richard A. Eisner, LLP
--------------------------
New York, New York
March 28, 1997
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30145]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[NAFTA-00634]


Lockheed Martin, Ocean, Radar & Sensor Systems, Utica, New York; 
Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title 
II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 USC 2273), the Department 
of Labor issued a Notice of Certification of Eligibility to Apply for 
NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance on October 26, 1995, 
applicable to workers of Lockheed Martin, Ocean, Radar & Sensor Systems 
Division located in Utica, New York. The notice will soon be published 
in the Federal Register.
    At the request of the State designee, the Department has reviewed 
the subject certification for workers at the subject firm. Based on new 
findings, the Department is amending the certification to include all 
workers engaged in the production of printed circuit boards.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by increased 
imports from Canada or Mexico. Therefore, the Department is amending 
the certification to expand coverage to all workers engaged in the 
production of printed circuit boards and all workers engaged in the 
inspection operation of the printed circuit board assemblies at 
Lockheed Martin, Ocean, Radar & Sensor Systems Division located in 
Utica, New York that were adversely affected by increased imports from 
Canada or Mexico and a shift in production of the inspection operation 
to Mexico, respectively.
    The amended notice applicable to NAFTA-00634 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers engaged in the production of printed circuit 
boards and all workers engaged in the inspection operation of the 
printed circuit board assemblies at Lockheed Martin, Ocean, Radar & 
Sensor Systems Division located in Utica, New York who become 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 
5, 1994 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 30th day of November 1995.
Russell T. Kile.
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-30145 Filed 12-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### STATE v. CURTIS SHEDD.

(Filed 7 March, 1951.)

Criminal Daw § 80b (4) —

Where defendant gives notice of appeal in open court, but does nothing to perfect the appeal, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss will be allowed, but where defendant has been convicted of a capital felony this will be done only after an inspection of the record proper fails to disclose error.

Appeal by defendant from *Pless, J.,*at December Term, 1950, of MacoN.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody for the State.*

*No counsel contra.*

Pee Ctjeiam.

The defendant, being charged in separate bills of indictment with the murder of Jo Ann Boyter and Johnnie Mae Boyter, was convicted of murder in the first degree in each of the two cases, which by consent were consolidated for trial. Sentence of death by asphyxiation was duly imposed in each case. The defendant gave notice of appeal. No case on appeal was served within the time allowed by the court below, and counsel for defendant in the trial below have notified the Clerk of the Superior Court of Macon County that they do not intend to perfect the appeal.

The Attorney-General moves to docket and dismiss the appeal. The motion must be allowed, but, according to the usual rule of the Court in *312capital cases, we have examined the record to see if any error appears. We find none therein. *S. v. Watson,*208 N.C. 70, 179 S.E. 455. Hence, Judgment affirmed.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 242 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 65064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30650]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families


Child Welfare Waiver Demonstrations Pursuant to Section 1130 of 
the Social Security Act (the Act); Titles IV-E and IV-B of the Act; 
Public Law 103-432

Agency: Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), ACF, 
DHHS.

Action: Public notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the Public Notice published in the Federal 
Register on September 7, 1995 (60 FR 46616), by extending the December 
31, 1995 due date for accepting new child welfare waiver demonstration 
proposals for any Second Round of proposals. A new Federal Register 
announcement will be published in January, 1996, to provide a new 
deadline for submission of additional child welfare waiver 
demonstration proposals if it is determined that additional proposals 
will be considered.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; Michael W. Ambrose at (202) 205-8618.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 7, 1995, the Administration on 
Children, Youth and Families published a Public Notice in the Federal 
Register that summarized the child welfare waiver demonstration 
proposals submitted to date and established December 31, 1994 as a due 
date for the submission of proposals for Round Two. This amendment 
cancels the December 31, 1995 due date. Any new Federal Register 
announcement providing a new deadline for child welfare waiver 
demonstration proposals will be published in January, 1996.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers 93.645, 
Child Services-State Grants; 93.658, Foster Care Maintenance; 
93.659, Adoption Assistance)

    Dated: December 11, 1995.
Olivia A. Golden,
Commissioner, Administration on Children, Youth and Families.
[FR Doc. 95-30650 Filed 12-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Sunshine Act Meetings]
[Page 63761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30318]








Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

``Federal Register'' Citation of Previous Announcement: Forwarded to 
the Federal Register on Wednesday, December 6, 1995.

Previously Announced Time and Date of the Meeting: 10:00 a.m., 
Wednesday, December 13, 1995.

Changes in the Meeting: Deletion of the following open item(s) from the 
agenda:

    Proposed policy statement describing how interest rate risk will 
be measured and evaluated for supervisory purposes (proposed earlier 
for public comment; Docket No. R-0802).

Contact Person for More Information: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204.

    Dated: December 7, 1995.
William W. Wiles,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 95-30318 Filed 12-7-95; 5:09 pm]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-4192

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Jesus Ibarra-Torres, * D istrict of Minnesota. * Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: December 29, 2005 Filed: January 5, 2006

___________ Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jesus Ibarra-Torres appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence-reduction motion. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Ibarra -Torres is not entitled to a sentence reduction based on Amendment 484 to the Sentencing Gu idelines because it was in effect when Ibarra-Torres was sentenced. SeeU.S.S.G. App. C, amend. 484; United States v. Alvarez , 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam).-2- Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7640

ELLIOTT GAINES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DOROTHY F. KEA, Registrar of the State Board

of Elections; JANET RENO, United States Attorney General; GEORGE ALLEN, Governor of Virginia; JAMES S. GILMORE, III, Attorney General of

Virginia; BRUCE MEADOW, Secretary of State

Board of Elections,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-971-AM)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 4, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

Elliott Gaines, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint and denying his

motion for reconsideration. Appellant noted the appeal of the

dismissal outside the sixty-day appeal period established by Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal

period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established by Fed. R. App. P. 4 are

"mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its

order on July 19, 1995; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on

October 9, 1995. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or

obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this court of

jurisdiction to consider the dismissal of his complaint. We therefore dismiss the appeal of the July 19 order.

Appellant also appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Gaines v. Kea, No. CA-95-971-AM

(E.D. Va. Sept. 13, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion to appoint

counsel. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 22, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50450

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SERVANDO GALARZA-COLLAZO,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-02-CR-641-1-AML

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Servando Galarza-Collazo appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Galarza-Collazo contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Galarza-Collazo maintains that
No. 03-50450

-2-

he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be

imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Galarza-Collazo acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
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).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members         
    -  AEE Multimedia         
    -  AEE Research Library 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (5.78 MB)

Tags:Space Command, Change of Command, CoC, USSPACECOM, Spacecom

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### Louis C. D’Homergue, Plaintiff, v. Edward H. Hobbs and others, Defendants.

— Part of judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs. Opiuion by

Barnard, P.. J.