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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         844,615
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,360,911
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  9,556,023
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,590,119
<PP&E>                                      15,746,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,038,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,037,464
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,335
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,675,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,038,233
<SALES>                                     68,373,654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            68,373,654
<CGS>                                       56,042,088
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               56,042,088
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,476,629
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,134,489
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,766,747
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,507,230
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,259,517
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,259,517
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
        

</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 11.1 PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
(UNAUDITED) (dollars and shares in thousands, except per share) 13 Weeks Ended
    
    26 Weeks EndedJuly 31, 2004
    
    August 2, 2003
    
    July 31, 2004
    
    August 2, 2003Diluted Computation:Net earnings
    
    $
    3,636
    
    
    $
    5,184
    
    
    $
    17,464
    
    
    $
    19,275Weighted average common shares outstanding
    
    
    67,996
    
    
    
    68,026
    
    
    
    67,961
    
    
    
    68,006Net effect of dilutive stock options and unearned
restricted stock based on the treasury stock
method
    
    
    78
    
    
    
    41
    
    
    
    76
    
    
    
    50Outstanding shares for diluted earnings per share
    
    
    68,074
    
    
    
    68,067
    
    
    
    68,037
    
    
    
    68,056Diluted earnings per share
    
    $
    0.05
    
    
    $
    0.08
    
    
    $
    0.26
    
    
    $
    0.28Basic Computation:Net earnings
    
    $
    3,636
    
    
    $
    5,184
    
    
    $
    17,464
    
    
    $
    19,275Weighted average common shares outstanding
    
    
    67,996
    
    
    
    68,026
    
    
    
    67,961
    
    
    
    68,006Basic earnings per share
    
    $
    0.05
    
    
    $
    0.08
    
    
    $
    0.26
    
    
    $
    0.28
 Basic earnings per share are computed by dividing net earnings by the
weighted average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the
period. Diluted earnings per share include the effect of conversions of
stock options and unearned restricted stock. The calculation of diluted
earnings per share for the thirteen-week and twenty-six-week periods ended
July 31, 2004, excludes the impact of 7,659,303 and 7,989,902 stock
options, respectively, because to include them would be anti-dilutive.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-1759

___________________________

Floyd Dell Johnson,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Charlie Crockett, Sgt., Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Billy Straughn, Warden,

Maximum Security Unit, ADC; S. Outlaw, Deputy Warden, Maximum Security

Unit, ADC; Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees.

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff

____________

 Submitted: October 7, 2013

Filed: November 14, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Arkansas Department of Correction inmate Floyd Johnson appeals the district

court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, for failure to 1

exhaust administrative remedies. 

Upon careful de novo review, see King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051,

1052 (8th Cir. 2010), we agree that, based on the evidence before the district court,

dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was proper. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 1997e(a) (no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under § 1983

by prisoner until available administrative remedies are exhausted); Jones v. Bock, 549

U.S. 199, 211, 218 (2007) (prison’s administrative exhaustion requirements govern

whether exhaustion has occurred; unexhausted claims cannot be brought into court

or considered). Johnson has submitted additional evidence on appeal, contending that

it shows exhaustion, but such evidence was not before the district court, so we will

not consider it. See Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 988 F.2d 61, 63

(8th Cir. 1993). Because the dismissal was without prejudice, we note Johnson isfree

to refile his complaint in the district court, see Schafer v. Moore, 46 F.3d 43, 45 (8th

Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (dismissal without prejudice permits plaintiff to refile

complaint), where he may submit his additional evidence of exhaustion.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of CEO and CFO 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 BlackRock, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Laurence D. Fink, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Paul L. Audet, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|/s/ Laurence D. Fink             
|Name:  Laurence D. Fink          
|Title:    Chief Executive Officer
|Date:    May 7, 2004             



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|/s/ Paul L. Audet                
|Name:  Paul L. Audet             
|Title:    Chief Financial Officer
|Date:    May 7, 2004             



This certification accompanies this
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and should not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to BlackRock, Inc. and will be retained by BlackRock, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Teak Delaron, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J.), rendered January 23, 1980, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing to reconstruct the record concerning the defendant’s application to proceed *pro se*and to waive his right to the assistance of counsel, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court, Kings County, is to conduct the hearing with all convenient speed.

We agree with the People’s contention that this matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court for a hearing to reconstruct the record on the issue of the defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel. One of the issues raised by the defendant is that the trial court, before permitting him to defend himself, did not conduct an inquiry into whether the defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowing and voluntary *(cf., People v McIntyre,*36 NY2d 10). That claim cannot be determined from the available trial minutes. Pending the reconstruction hearing, the appeal is held in abeyance. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### Larry JACKSON, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 42341.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 31, 1990.

Daniel C. Miller, Sp. Public Defender, Jacqueline K. McGreevy, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, Kansas City, for movant-appel-lant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and MANFORD and BERREY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Direct appeal from dismissal of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4696

II-VI Incorporated:

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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

“Made in China 2025” or other Chinese industrial programs.

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
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 3027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-712]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determination

    Notice is hereby given of the following determination: Pursuant to 
the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 
985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 F.R. 
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985 
(50 F.R. 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects to 
be included in the exhibit, ``Claes Oldenburg: An Anthology'' (See 
list\1\), imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without 
profit within the United States, are of cultural significance. These 
objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign 
lenders. I also determine that the temporary exhibition or display of 
the listed exhibit objects at National Gallery of Art from on or about 
February 12, 1995 to May 7, 1995, at The Museum of Contemporary Art, 
Los Angeles, California from June 18, 1995 to September 3, 1995 and at 
the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, N.Y. from October 7, 1995 
to January 14, 1996 is in the national interest. Public Notice of this 
determination is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

    \1\A copy of this list may be obtained by contacting Mrs. Carol 
B. Epstein, Assistant General Counsel, at 619-6981, and the address 
is Room 700, U.S. Information Agency, 301 Fourth Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: January 5, 1995.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-712 Filed 1-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby  consent to the  incorporation  by reference  to (a) the  Registration
Statement  on Form S-3  (333-1044),  as amended,  and the  Prospectus  contained
therein, (b) the Registration  Statement on Form S-3 (033-55792-NY),as  amended,
and the Prospectus contained therein, (c) the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(333-01048),   as  amended,  and  the  Prospectus  contained  therein,  (d)  the
Registration  Statement on Form S-3 (333-69311),  as amended, and the Prospectus
contained  therein,  (e) the Registration  Statement on Form S-3 (333-30054) and
the Prospectus  contained  therein,  (f) the Registration  Statement on Form S-3
(333-32642)  and the  Prospectus  contained  therein,  and (g) the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (333-31832) and the Prospectus  contained therein,  of our
report dated September 29, 2000, appearing on Page 23 of Greg Manning Auctions,
Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the years ended June 30, 2000 and 1999.


/s/ AMPER, POLITZINER & MATTIA P.A.

Edison, New Jersey
September 29, 2000
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4389

Milacron:

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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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
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-2018-0025-3387

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MICHAEL MARTINEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-1526

[July 29, 2015]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County; Sherwood Bauer, Jr., 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 472010CF638A.

Michael Martinez, Jasper, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Martinez v. State, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 

June 3, 2015)

GROSS, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3058

Taurus International Corporation:

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/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_05.09.19.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 the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

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-2018-0025-4070

Tianhai Electric North America:

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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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
EXHIBIT 32.2**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the quarterly report of Payless ShoeSource, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending October 29, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Ullrich E. Porzig, Senior Vice President — Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: December 7, 2005       /s/ Ullrich E. Porzig         Ullrich E. Porzig    Senior Vice President — Chief Financial Officer    and Treasurer    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  
53
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 6, 2011 

y0829 

Order 

 

September 6, 2011 

142906 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142906 

 COA: 298603 

Wayne CC: 06-014173-FC 

DOMINIC OMARI NORMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 11, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).