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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,370,038
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,589,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                    93,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,094,228
<PP&E>                                       5,903,795
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,628,864
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,607,351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,583,457
<BONDS>                                      1,436,782
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       115,966
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,471,146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,607,351
<SALES>                                      5,654,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,654,938
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,123,949
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               398,868
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               101,728
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             398,868
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,867,879)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,867,879)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,867,879)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.99)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

       We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 33-54398, 33-78348, 333-07515, 333-43547, 333-56697, 333-32118 and
333-42698 on Form S-8 and Nos. 333-60925 and 333-96369 on Form S-3 of Metretek
Technologies, Inc. (f.k.a. Marcum Natural Gas Services, Inc.) of our report
dated March 21, 2001 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Metretek
Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2000.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 21, 2001



                                       8
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4249 

To create a point of order against legislation making nondefense discretionary 

appropriations that would increase the deficit during a period of high inflation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18 (legislative day, MAY 17), 2022 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Budget 

A BILL 

To create a point of order against legislation making nondefense discretionary appropriations that would increase 

the deficit during a period of high inflation. 

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

3 SECTION 1. POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE AGAINST 

4 LEGISLATION MAKING NONDEFENSE DISCRE5 TIONARY APPROPRIATIONS THAT WOULD IN6 CREASE THE DEFICIT DURING A PERIOD OF 

7 HIGH INFLATION. 

8 (a) POINT OF ORDER.—It shall not be in order in 

9 the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, 

10 amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conVerDate Sep 11 2014 15:54 May 23, 2022 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S4249.IS S4249

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4249 IS

1 ference report making appropriations for the revised non2 security category (as defined in section 250(c) of the Bal3 anced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 

4 (2 U.S.C. 900(c))) that, if enacted, would increase the def5 icit over the period of current fiscal year, the budget year, 

6 and the ensuing 9 fiscal years following the budget year 

7 if the annualized change in the most recently monthly re8 port on the Consumer Price Index for All-Urban Con9 sumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the 

10 Department of Labor is not less than 3 percent. 

11 (b) WAIVER AND APPEAL.—Subsection (a) may be 

12 waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative 

13 vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. 

14 An affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members of the 

15 Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sus16 tain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of 

17 order raised under subsection (a). 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply on 

19 and after July 1, 2022. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 1 1

- 00 569

- CR

IN RE David CEPEDA JONES

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 24, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On August 3, 2011, relator filed two petitions for writ of mandamus. The court has

considered relator’s petitions and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petitions for writ of mandamus are DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

Additionally, relator filed an Application fo r Leave to File Petition for Writ of

Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. T EX

. R.

A PP

. P . 52. Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 887946 , in the County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas, the

Honorable Liza Rodriguez presiding, and Cause No. CM

- 002974, in the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar

County, Texas, the Honorable Philip Kazen p residing.
#### Donna GOTSCH, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Craig GOTSCH, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 63875.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 8, 1994.

*145Craig Gotsch, pro se.

Edward J. Delworth, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Husband, Craig Gotsch, appeals from a decree of dissolution of his marriage to wife, Donna Gotsch.

The decree is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The decree of dissolution is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Wife’s motion for damages for a frivolous appeal pursuant to Rule 84.19 is denied.
#### Centronics Corporation, Appellant, v John D. Roller et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

Order, Supreme Court, Westchester County (W. Denis Donovan, J.), entered March 16, 1989, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment foreclosing a mortgage, unanimously reversed, on the law, summary judgment granted to plaintiff, and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision, with costs.

On October 15, 1986 the defendants John and Robyn Roller executed and delivered to plaintiff a promissory note in the sum of $437,000 payable by January 14, 1987. In the event of default on the payment of the principal or an extension by the payee of the due date, interest on the unpaid balance from January 15, 1987 would be at the rate of 12% per annum, payable on February 15,1987 and monthly thereafter.

If the principal or interest was not paid when due, there was an option to declare the entire sum due.

On October 15, 1986, the defendants executed and delivered, as security for the note, a mortgage on premises known as 92 Walworth Avenue, Scarsdale, New York. The mortgage was duly recorded.

Defendants failed to make any payment of principal or interest, and plaintiff exercised its option to declare the entire principal due and owing.

Defendants’ assertion that the due date for payment of the note was extended by an oral agreement that no moneys would be required for payment until their home in Houston, Texas was sold is contrary to General Obligations Law § 5-703 (3). It provides: "A contract to devise real property or establish a trust of real property, or any interest therein or right with reference thereto, is void unless the contract or some note or memorandum thereof is in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith, or by his lawfully authorized agent.”

Moreover, plaintiff’s argument that the claim here should have been made as a counterclaim in a pending Federal action brought by defendants against plaintiff is rejected. While the Federal action was commenced about a week before this action, there is no dispute that plaintiff did not receive notice of it until after the commencement of the action here. In any case the defendants’ claim of an oral agreement delaying any *318payment due on the mortgage has been ruled unenforceable in the Federal action as contrary to the Statute of Frauds. (General Obligations Law § 5-703.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Milonas, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         882860
<NAME>                        Pilgrim America Capital Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1 
<CASH>                                                  219 
<SECURITIES>                                          3,127 
<RECEIVABLES>                                           458 
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0 
<INVENTORY>                                               0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      3,804 
<PP&E>                                                1,064 
<DEPRECIATION>                                          370 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       50,647 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 3,419 
<BONDS>                                                   0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0 
<PREFERRED>                                               0 
<COMMON>                                                 54 
<OTHER-SE>                                           41,689 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         50,647 
<SALES>                                              21,288 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          0 
<CGS>                                                     0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     14,936 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       6,352 
<INCOME-TAX>                                         (4,959)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  11,311 
<DISCONTINUED>                                          413 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0 
<CHANGES>                                                 0 
<NET-INCOME>                                         11,724 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          2.81 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          2.72 
                                                     

</TABLE>
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-3777

Cummins Inc Power Systems Business Unit: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3615

Scosche Industries, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF WPI GROUP, INC. FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 26, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1999
<CASH>                                       1,086,708
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,198,808
<ALLOWANCES>                                   171,000
<INVENTORY>                                    461,893
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            60,991,718
<PP&E>                                       2,733,508
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,065,035
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,557,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       72,828,353
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,504
<OTHER-SE>                                 (11,034,785)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,557,059
<SALES>                                     12,288,976
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,288,976
<CGS>                                        4,801,990
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,801,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,794,141
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             620,213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,974,995)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,974,995)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (29,229,821)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                   (2,822,147)
<NET-INCOME>                               (36,026,963)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (5.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5.96)


</TABLE>
v7 

## . 8-2 /fiSo-a^ '75uS"V--iAAo+\fuK 4*°'••' NAtrvM^ 'v^(^\ -bvoJr 'Mc|--'.AfxO' rv\cv\\\f\<^ ca^±^S> \Sl ' . : 1 .; —' 

### ••lAuFRtfrc^ k)V^RJr. •

2^o ^pftee 6\vj^ !

' '' ft-PT. '.^-7-A 

### bfcJ ^\6.,rvjk • H^SKo



### \a >r<?^r<4s -Vo \\o77 , U)r^l,o8o ~o| ... . • •• :•
.. oo^'- 9)2-. 060 -0-2L : 

## # . .•~^VxvA\C Vol^ • /^LsC^sx{/Jj~> /U^/^z^\

' • •'''•••• . • • • •' ' 

### • • ' • RECFIVFDIW' ' COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS ••FEB 09 2015

' ' Ah/f^l ^iWMjftffli (PHar1!1' AIJUI imlUUjaltfci!9 MlSlllr* A
• •'.''..' ' •. • ' •'.'••'. ' ' ,' ' .' •.•..'" •'.''•
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Nathan Maxwell v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number s : 01

- 16

- 00672

- CR ; 01

- 16

- 00679

- CR

Trial court case number s : 16

- DCR

- 073827 ; 13

- DCR

- 063043A

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant, Nathan Maxwell, pleaded guilty to the offenses of sexual assault of a child and aggravated sexual assault of a child and punishment was assessed at 70 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas De partment of Criminal Justice (TDCJ

- ID) for the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child and 20 years in TDCJ

- ID for the offense of sexual assault. The trial court ordered all of the exhibits in these two trial court causes sealed by orders signed No vember 21, 2016. On January 30, 2017, appellant’s counsel filed a motion to require the trial court to unseal these records so that counsel could review the m to determine if they were necessary to the appeal or if the record required supplementing. The St ate has not filed a response opposing appellant’s request. Maxwell has the right to have his appellate counsel review the record to determine if it is complete and if there are arguable issues to be raised on appeal. See Ukwuachu v. State , 494 S.W.3d 733 , 734 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2016

, order) ; Robicheaux v. State , No. 03

– 14

– 00329

– CR, 2015 WL 653612, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Feb. 13, 2015, order). In Robicheaux , the Austin court of appeals allowed access to the sealed records with specific limitations. See 2015 WL 653612, at *2. In accordance with the limitations set out in Robicheaux

, we grant counsel’s request for access to the sealed exhibits with the following limitations:

 The sealed exhibits are ordered unsealed only as to the attorneys of record for the purpose of preparing briefs and motions in this Court;

 Appellate counsel for the State and Appellant may review the contents of the sealed exhibits at the office of the Clerk of th is Court during regular office hours, but may not copy the records or ch eck them out;

 Counsel may take notes but are ordered to destroy any such notes immediately upon this Court’s issuance of its mandate in these causes; The parties and their counsel are ordered not to disclose any information contained in

these sealed exhibits to any other person; and

 If the parties raise any arguments concerning evidence contained in the sealed exhibits, the parties are ordered to f ile their appellate briefs under seal in electronic format over the counter in the office of the Clerk of th is Court , with a statement on the cover of the brief clearly stating the brief is sealed by order of this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signatur e:

_

/s/ Harvey Brown  Acting individually

Date: February 23, 2017
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1982

Braeburn Systems LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel