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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION
EXTRACTED  FROM  THE STATEMENTS  FOR THE YEAR  ENDED  JULY 31, 1996
AND AS OF
JULY 31,  1996 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE
TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000914282
<NAME> WIZ TECHNOLOGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US dollars
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jul-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 Aug-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jul-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         450,971
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,903,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                   607,653
<INVENTORY>                                    998,814
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,139,385
<PP&E>                                         874,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9,524,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,985,521
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1201
<COMMON>                                       8,936
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,311,826
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,524,203
<SALES>                                        7,056,626
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,056,626
<CGS>                                          5,539,431
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9,920,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               262,683
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             129,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,126,737)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,127,537)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,127,537)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.37)
        

</TABLE>
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4199

To amend the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the establishment of

the Everglades National Park in the State of Florida and for other

purposes’’, approved May 30, 1934, to clarify certain rights of the

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 1996

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (for himself, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. DIAZBALART, and Mr. MILLER of Florida) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the establishment of the Everglades National Park in the State

of Florida and for other purposes’’, approved May 30,

1934, to clarify certain rights of the Miccosukee Tribe

of Indians of Florida.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

4 The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the establish5 ment of the Everglades National Park in the State of
2

•HR 4199 IH

1 Florida and for other purposes’’, approved May 30, 1934

2 (16 U.S.C. 410–410c), is amended by adding at the end

3 the following new sections:

4 ‘‘SEC. 5. The Miccosukee Tribe may use the Permit

5 Area in accordance with the Permit, except that—

6 ‘‘(1) condition 7 of the Permit, relating to re7 moval of improvements, shall not apply;

8 ‘‘(2) condition 15 of the Permit, relating to rev9 ocation of the Permit, shall not apply;

10 ‘‘(3) notwithstanding any condition of the Per11 mit, the approval of, the consent of, or a permit

12 from the Director shall not be required if the

13 Miccosukee Tribe has met all other requirements of

14 Federal law related to such approval, consent, or

15 permit; and

16 ‘‘(4) the Miccosukee Tribe may exercise juris17 diction over the Permit Area to the same extent as

18 the Miccosukee Tribe exercises jurisdiction over the

19 Miccosukee Indian Reservation.

20 ‘‘SEC. 6. For purposes of this Act—

21 ‘‘(1) the term ‘‘Director’’ means the Director,

22 National Park Service, and includes the Super23 intendent of the Everglades National Park;

24 ‘‘(2) the term ‘‘Miccosukee Tribe’’ means the

25 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, a tribe of
3

•HR 4199 IH

1 American Indians recognized by the United States

2 and organized under section 16 of the Act of June

3 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 987; 25 U.S.C. 476);

4 ‘‘(3) the term ‘‘Permit’’ means the Special Use

5 Permit issued by the National Park Service to the

6 Miccosukee Tribe, approved by the Secretary of the

7 Interior on February 1, 1973;

8 ‘‘(4) the term ‘‘Permit Area’’ means the prop9 erty described in the Permit; and

10 ‘‘(5) the term ‘‘Seminole Indians’’ includes the

11 Miccosukee Tribe.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 12.2  CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a 
14(a) AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, John R. Allison certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form
20-F of Kerzner International Limited; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does
not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the Company as of, and for the periods presented in this
report; 4. The Companys other certifying officers
and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
Company and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over
financial reporting; and 5. The Companys other certifying officers
and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of
the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function): a) All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting which  are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
Companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date:
  March 30, 2004
  
  /s/
  John R. AllisonJohn
  R. AllisonChief
  Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

denied

NO. 15-0245

BOSHENG WEN

v.

KRISTOPHER AHN §

§

§

§

§

§ Harris County,

1st District.

May 29, 2015

Petitioner 's petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

August 7, 2015

Petitioner's motion for rehearing of petition for review, filed herein in the above

numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

         

I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE

, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, BOSHENG WEN, pay all costs incurred on this

petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 7th day of August, 2015

.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6957

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RICKY MILTON GOSSERT , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Robert G. Doumar , Senior District Judge. ( 2:17

- cr - 00112

- RGD

- DEM

- 1 )

Submitted : October 14, 2021 Decided: October 19, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Ricky Milton Gossert, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpubli shed opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ricky Milton Gossert appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (i) , as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Having reviewed the record and finding no reversible error, we affirm the decision of the district court

. See United States v. Gossert , No. 2:17

- cr - 00112

- RGD

- DEM

- 1 ( E.D. Va. June 2, 2021 ). We dispense w ith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED
## NO. 12

- 09

- 00382

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MARK ANTHONY MARTINEZ, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant pleaded guilty , pursuant to a plea bargain, to aggravated kidna pping with the intent

to terrorize. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 20.04(a)(5) (Vernon 2003). T he trial court found

Appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for seventeen years

. We have received

the trial court = s certification showing tha t this is a plea bargain case and Appellant has no right to

appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered November 18, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle , J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH )
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17961]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Sec.  1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on May 28, 2008, Chattem 
Chemicals Inc., 3801 St. Elmo Avenue, Building 18, Chattanooga, 
Tennessee 37409, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed in schedules I and II:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4-Methoxyamphetamine (7411).................  I
Difenoxin (9168)............................  I
Amphetamine (1100)..........................  II
Methamphetamine (1105)......................  II
Methylphenidate (1724)......................  II
Pentobarbital (2270)........................  II
Codeine (9050)..............................  II
Oxycodone (9143)............................  II
Hydrocodone (9193)..........................  II
Meperidine (9230)...........................  II
Dextropropoxyphene, bulk (non-dosage forms)   II
 (9273).
Morphine (9300).............................  II
Thebaine (9333).............................  II
Noroxymorphone (9668).......................  II
Alfentanil (9737)...........................  II
Sufentanil (9740)...........................  II
Fentanyl (9801).............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances 
in bulk for distribution to its customers.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such substances, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and must be filed no 
later than October 6, 2008.

    Dated: July 29, 2008.
 Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
 [FR Doc. E8-17961 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of Army 

          - [Docket ID: USA-2008-0049] 

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD. 

# ACTION:

Notice to delete a system of records. 

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Army is deleting a system of records in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. 

# DATES:

This proposed actions will be effective without further notice on September 2, 2008 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination. 

# ADDRESSES:

Send comments to the Department of the Army, Records Management and Declassification Agency, Privacy Division, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, VA 22315. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Vicki Short at (703) 428-6508. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and are available from the address above.                 

The Department of Army proposes to delete a system of records notice from its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed deletion is not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of new or altered systems reports. 

Dated: July 25, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

## A0055-355a DALO 

### System name: 

Local transportation Authorization and Use Files (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10002). 

### Reason:

These records are no longer collected or maintained by Army G-4, they are covered under Privacy Act System of Records Notice T7334, Defense Travel System (September 8, 2004, 69 FR 54272). 

[FR Doc. E8-17602 Filed 7-31-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN SCHMIDT,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-10744-BC

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY, 

L.P.,

Defendant.

______________________________________ /

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING COUNT II,

 AND CANCELLING HEARING

On February 26, 2009, Plaintiff John Schmidt filed a complaint alleging that his employer,

Defendant Terminix International Company, engaged in age discrimination. The complaint alleges,

inter alia, a cause of action for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits discrimination on the

basis of race. See Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 167 (1976) (section 1981 prohibits racial

discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts). On May 28, 2009, Defendant moved

to dismiss that cause of action because the complaint does not allege an act of racial discrimination.

Dkt. # 7. On June 17, 2009, Plaintiff’s response concurs in the dismissal of the 42 U.S.C. § 1981

claim. Dkt. # 12. Thus, the Court will grant the motion and dismiss Count II of the complaint.

In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Defendant did not seek concurrence before

filing the motion to dismiss and that Plaintiff would have agreed to a stipulated order dismissing the

claim. Id. The Eastern District of Michigan requires counsel to seek concurrence before filing a

motion. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(a). In the future, counsel are cautioned to seek concurrence before filing

a motion and, in the event that concurrence is not obtained, indicate so in the motion. See id.

1:09-cv-10744-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 07/17/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 60
-2-

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 7] is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

It is further ORDERED that the August 10, 2009 hearing is CANCELLED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 17, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on July 17, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-10744-TLL-CEB Doc # 14 Filed 07/17/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 61
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 488
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 2 of 15 Pg ID 489
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 3 of 15 Pg ID 490
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 4 of 15 Pg ID 491
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 5 of 15 Pg ID 492
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 6 of 15 Pg ID 493
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 7 of 15 Pg ID 494
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 8 of 15 Pg ID 495
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 9 of 15 Pg ID 496
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 10 of 15 Pg ID 497
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 11 of 15 Pg ID 498
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 12 of 15 Pg ID 499
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 13 of 15 Pg ID 500
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 14 of 15 Pg ID 501
2:09-cr-20222-VAR-RSW Doc # 101 Filed 08/18/11 Pg 15 of 15 Pg ID 502
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 23, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 23, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0110. MICHAEL CATO v. COURTNEY D. PARKER.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2016CV00731
#### Cottrie William JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 50249.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 5, 1995.

Jarrett A. Johnson, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

*895Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and KENNEDY and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the denial after an evidentia-ry hearing of appellant’s Rule 24.035 motion.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).