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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ENVIROTEST SYSTEMS CORP. FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          53,104
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,969
<ALLOWANCES>                                       449
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               158,496
<PP&E>                                         232,629
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 480,784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,888
<BONDS>                                        420,476
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           166
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,988
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   480,784
<SALES>                                        124,472
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,472
<CGS>                                          102,149
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,149
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,677
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                75,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,997
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,426)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,638
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,064)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,064)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  $(1.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(1.51)
        

</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5158 

To terminate authorizations for the use of military force and declarations 

of war not later than 10 years after the enactment of such authorizations 

or declarations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 4, 2023 

Mr. SCHIFF (for himself, Ms. OMAR, and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To terminate authorizations for the use of military force 

and declarations of war not later than 10 years after 

the enactment of such authorizations or declarations, 

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 ‘‘Accountability for 

5 Endless Wars Act of 2023’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5158 IH

1 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF AUTHORIZATIONS FOR USE OF 

2 MILITARY FORCE AND DECLARATIONS OF 

3 WAR. 

4 (a) FUTURE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR USE OF MILI5 TARY FORCE AND DECLARATIONS OF WAR.—Any author6 ization for the use of military force or declaration of war 

7 enacted into law on or after the date of the enactment 

8 of this Act shall terminate on the date that is not later 

9 than 10 years after the date of the enactment of such au10 thorization or declaration, as the case may be. 

11 (b) EXISTING AUTHORIZATIONS FOR USE OF MILI12 TARY FORCE AND DECLARATIONS OF WAR.—Any author13 ization for the use of military force or declaration of war 

14 enacted into law before the date of the enactment of this 

15 Act and in effect as of such date of enactment shall termi16 nate on the date that is 180 days after such date of enact17 ment. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Wniteb ~tate~ ([ourt of ~peaI~

for tbe jfeberaI ([ircuit

GREEN EDGE ENTERPRISES, LLC,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant,

v.

RUBBER MULCH ETC., LLC,

GROUNDSCAPE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

AND RUBBER RESOURCES, LTD., LLP,

Defendants/ Counterclaimants,

v.

INTERNATIONAL MULCH COMPANY

AND MICHAEL MILLER,

Counterclaim DefendantsAppellees,

v.

JUDY SMITH,

Counterclaim Defendant,

AND

LEE GREENBERG,

Counterclaim Defendant.

2012-1539

Case: 12-1539 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 01/10/2013
GREEN EDGE ENTERPRISES V. RUBBER MULCH ETC. 2

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Missouri in case no. 02-CV-0566,

Magistrate Judge Terry 1. Adelman.

ORDER

On September 14, 2012, the court ordered Green Edge

Enterprises, LLC (Green Edge) to find substitute counsel to

enter an appearance within 60 days. Counsel for Green

Edge timely entered an appearance but then withdrew its

representation due to a conflict ofinterest. Green Edge has

failed to comply with this order.

Federal Circuit Rule 47.3(a) allows an individual to

represent himself or herself, but prohibits a corporation,

partnership, organization, or other legal entity from doing

so. See also Int 'l Inst. for Fundamental Studies, Inc. v.

United States, 222 Ct. Cl. 626, 630-31 (1980).

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

Case: 12-1539 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 01/10/2013
3 GREEN EDGE ENTERPRISES V. RUBBER MULCH ETC.

s26

Issued As A Mandate: __J_A_N_1_8_2_0_13 _

Case: 12-1539 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 01/10/2013
**EXHIBIT 10.17.4**

 

**EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO**

**GLOBAL ePOINT, INC.**

 

**1994 STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR DIRECTORS**

 

The Global ePoint, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Directors (“Plan”), as amended, is further amended as follows: 

 

1.  Section 3, as amended, shall be further amended by deleting paragraph (c) in its entirety andsubstituting in lieu thereof the following: 

 

“(c)  Options shall be granted to Directors of the Company who are not also employees of the Company automatically in accordance with the following formula: 

 

(i)  An option for 10,000 shares shall be granted to each such Director as of eachJune 30. 

 

(ii)  Anoption for 10,000 shares shall be granted to each new Director who is not also an employee of the Company as of the date of becoming a Director, unless he or she first becomes a Director between April 1 and June 30 of any year. 

 

(iii)  An option for 10,000 sharesshall be granted to each such Director as of the effective date of this Amendment in lieu of cash compensation during the period from December 19, 2002 until the 2003 Annual Shareholders Meeting. 

 

The foregoing formula shall not be amendedmore than once every six (6) months other than to comply with changes in the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) or ERISA or the rules and regulations thereunder.” 

 

2.  Section 7, as amended, shall be further amended by deleting paragraph (c) in its entirety andsubstituting in lieu thereof the following: 

 

“(c)  Each option shall vest and become exercisable six (6) months after the date of grant of the option, except for options granted pursuant to Section 3(c)(iii) which shall vest as of the commencement of the 2003Annual Shareholders Meeting.” 

 

3.  This Amendment shall be effective as of December 19, 2002. 

 

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Company has executed this Eighth Amendment as of the 19th day of December, 2002.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         1052519
<NAME>                        Trump Atlantic City Funding III, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0 
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      469
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   469
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              469
<BONDS>                                         23,826
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,295
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</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-2018-0025-6232

Madison Precision Products, 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/%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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerald Stripling, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of rape in the first degree, two counts of sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. On appeal, he contends that it was error for the court to admit a taped conversation between complainant and a police dispatcher during the course of the rape. The tape was properly admitted. When a rape victim makes prompt complaint about the incident, that fact may be testified to by the victim or by any witness who heard the complaint *(Baccio v People,*41 NY 265). Such evidence is admissible because it is probative of the complainant’s state of mind and credibility. That evidence, however, may not relate any of the particulars or details of the incident *(People v Riggio,*144 AD2d 951, *Iv denied*73 NY2d 981; *People v Ranum,*122 AD2d 959, 961). The conversation at issue here did not relate any of the details of the

*1030incident. It merely disclosed the fact that defendant was in the house and was hurting the complainant but did not reveal his identity or otherwise describe his actions.

Defendant’s claim that his sentence is excessive is without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J.—rape, first degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
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 Mothers Work, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward M. Krell, Executive Vice PresidentChief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/EDWARD M. KRELLEdward M. Krell Executive Vice President-Chief
Financial OfficerDecember 23, 2003 |  |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1407

ROMULO HERNANDEZ ARGUETA,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: August 23, 2018 Decided: August 27, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Romulo Hernandez Argueta, Petitioner Pro Se. Jonathan Kevin Ross, Office of 

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, 

D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Romulo Hernandez Argueta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection 

under the Convention Against Torture. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of 

jurisdiction because it was untimely filed.

“The petition for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the 

final order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (2012). This time period is “jurisdictional

in nature and must be construed with strict fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 

386, 405 (1995). It is “not subject to equitable tolling.” Id. 

The Board’s decision was issued on March 1, 2018. Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(1), Hernandez Argueta had thirty days, or until Monday, April 2, 2018, to 

timely file the petition for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). Hernandez 

Argueta’s petition for review, which was filed at the earliest on April 9, 2018, is clearly 

untimely. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

PETITION DISMISSED
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00325-CR

IN RE JOSE MARTINEZ

Original Proceeding

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-1356-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Roughly eight years after his conviction, Jose Martinez has asked this Court to 

compel the trial court to rule on pending discovery motions by a writ of mandamus. The 

referenced motions were not attached to the petition as was asserted by Martinez in the 

petition. Without knowing when, as well as why, the motions were filed and why the 

ruling by the trial court on the motions is necessary or appropriate, we have no choice 

but to deny the petition. 

Accordingly, the “Motion for Writ of Mandamus” filed by Martinez on December 

6, 2021, is denied without prejudice to filing a proper petition for writ of mandamus with 
In re Martinez Page 2

an appropriate record. See TEX. R. APP P. 52.3; 52.7 (contents of petition and 

appendix/record).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and 

Justice Smith

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed December 22, 2021

Do not publish 

[OT06]
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8314]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[AK7-1-6588b; FRL-5171-6]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision submitted by the state of Alaska for the purpose of 
reducing the National Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide 
(CO). The SIP revision was submitted by the state to satisfy certain 
federal Clean Air Act requirements for a basic motor vehicle inspection 
and maintenance (I/M) program in the Municipality of Anchorage and the 
Fairbanks Northstar Borough area. In the Final Rules Section of this 
Federal Register, the EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a 
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this 
as a noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no adverse 
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the 
direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to 
this proposed rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to 
this rule. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule 
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this notice.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
May 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Montel Livingston, 
Environmental Protection Specialist (AT-082), Air Programs Section, at 
the EPA Regional Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant 
to this proposed rule are available for public inspection during normal 
business hours at the following locations. The interested persons 
wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the 
appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Air Programs Section, 
1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.

The State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; 410 
Willoughby, Suite 105, Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christi Lee, Air Programs Branch (AT-
082), EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:See the information provided in the Direct 
Final action which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: March 2, 1995.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-8314 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
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-2018-0025-4471

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

August 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4401

David C. Poole Company:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel