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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             891
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,105
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,071
<INVENTORY>                                      8,807
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,694
<PP&E>                                         144,448
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,127
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 558,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,258
<BONDS>                                        278,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       283,353
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   558,854
<SALES>                                         14,980
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,460
<CGS>                                            9,755
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   51,176
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               126,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,906
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (76,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (19,791)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (56,595)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (56,595)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Benjamin Altman, Doing Business as B. Altman & Company, Respondent, v. Adele Meroni, Doing Business as Madame Laurent, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Houghton, J., dissenting, and voting to modify judgment by restricting execution to attached property.
#### Bush et al. v. Finucane, for use, etc.

When work performed under a contract has been accepted, the party performing is entitled to compensation, and if defective, a claim for damages, if not waived, may be recouped.

*Appeal from County Court of Arapahoe County.*

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Messrs. Bentley and Vaile, for appellants.

Mr. James H. Beown, for appellee.

*193Helm, J.

This action was originally brought before a justice of the peace to recover a balance of $65, claimed to be due for labor performed and materials furnished, in erecting a certain structure at Broadway Park, near Denver. It was afterwards tried *de novo*in the county court on appeal, without the intervention of a jury. We have before us, therefore, neither written pleadings nor instructions to a jury. Plaintiff recovered a judgment of $50.

The defense is that there was.a special oral contract for the shed or building, and that plaintiff failed to comply therewith.

Appellee’s first objection, that the judgment cannot be reversed, because no exception was reserved thereto, is based upon a misapprehension of facts. The printed abstract fails to mention such an exception, but the transcript on file in this court shows that it was duly reserved.

The special contract is sufficiently established;- and the testimony shows, without contradiction, that in at least one particular there was a material non-compliance therewith; the building was to be “ battened all around,” but the back side and ends were not battened at all. Other defects were complained of; it is, however, unnecessary to notice them here.

The evidence is extremely meager, and, in some particulars, highly unsatisfactory. But we think it establishes an acceptance by defendant. There is nothing to indicate a refusal to receive and occupy the structure; while the testimony of four witnesses, including that of both defendants, shows that it was in use for sheltering horses and buggies. This was the very purpose for which it •was constructed.

Having occupied and used the building, thereby voluntarily receiving the benefit of plaintiff’s labor and expenditures, defendants will not, under the circumstances of this case, be heard to deny his right of recovery. Defendants objected to the character of the work, and can-*194not be held to have waived a right to damages, in the matter of battening at least; but these damages were a proper subject of recoupment. The county court deducted $15 from the contract price; and, in the absence of any testimony showing the amount of defendant’s injury on account of non-compliance with the agreement, we must presume that the sum so fixed upon was sufficient.

The judgment is

*Affirmed.*
No. 72-1114.

#### Hutter et ux. *v.*Korzen.

Appeal from App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist., dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
#### NORRIS v. MICHAUD et al.

No. 4450.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1933.

For former opinion, see 148 So. 493.

Elder & Elder, of Huston, for appellants.

Redmond & Thompson, of Monroe, for ap-pellee.

DREW, Judge.

In a former hearing of this case, this court increased the award of the lower court in favor of plaintiff from the sum of $530 to $1,030. On application for rehearing, it was brought to the attention of the court that, although appellee argued and proved the quantum of damages, no answer to the appeal praying for the increase had been filed. A rehearing was granted as to the quantum of damages alone.

The case has been resubmitted, and, due to the fact that no answer to the appeal appears in the record, our former decree in so far as it increases the amount of damages awarded to plaintiff, will have to be recalled; and there is now judgment affirming the judgment of the lower court, with costs, for reasons assigned in the former opinion of this court.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 41623 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ABEL BECERRA,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:16 -CR- 1048 -1

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Abel Becerra was convicted of being found in the United States after a previous deportation and was sentenced above the guidelines range to 28 months of imprisonment. Becerra argues on appeal that his case should be remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of reforming the statement of reasons to match the district court’s oral justification for imposing
his above

- guidelines sentence. He contends that the district court orally

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit 

### FILED August 31, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-41623 Document: 00514138974 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/31/2017No. 16

- 41623

2 imposed an upward variance at sentencing, but the statement of reasons reflects that the district court granted the Government’s motion to upwardly depart pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(a)(2). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 states, “After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a jud gment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.” The nature of the above -guidelines sentence orally imposed by the district court in this case is ambiguous

. Accordingly, the district court’s reliance in the statement of reasons on § 5K2.0(a)(2) as the basis for departure cannot be characterized as a mere clerical error that can be reformed under Rule 36. In response to the Government’s argument that the district court orally imposed a § 5K2.0 upward departure, rather than an upward variance, Becerra

argues for the first time in his reply brief that the district court committed plain error in applying a § 5K2.0(a)(2) upward departure. However, we will not consider this argument because it is being raised for the first time in a reply brief. See United States v. Aguirre -Villa , 460 F.3d 681, 683 n.2 (5th Cir. 2006). Although Becerra contends that his argument should be considered because it is being made in response to the Government’s “unex pected” argument that the district court was imposing an upward departure, the Government’s brief did not address the issue whether the application of such an upward departure was procedurally reasonable. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 16-41623 Document: 00514138974 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/31/2017
#### Alice McBennett, as Administratrix, etc., of Patrick McBennett, Deceased, Appellant, v. David Shuldiner Glass Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion.
#### Maryland Casualty Company, Respondent, v. Charles A. Brown and John Fleming, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

WESLEY ANDREW FOX, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-1756 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed August 23, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Frank Quesada, Judge. Rachael E. Reese of O'Brien Hatfield, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Blain A. Goff, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, SLEET, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### Addie M. Hunt v. Long Island Railroad Company.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
In the Interest of B.J., a child. ) ___________________________________) ) M.G. and T.J., ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4567 ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM ) PROGRAM, ) ) Respondents. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed January 16, 2019.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Collier County; Christine Greider, Judge. Toni A. Butler, of Aldericcio & Butler, LLC, Naples, and Nico J. Vitale of Nico J. Vitale, P.A., Naples for Petitioners. Meredith K. Hall, of Children's Legal Services, Bradenton, for Respondent Department of Children and Families. Morgan L. Weinstein of Defending Best Interests Project, Hollywood, and Sara Goldfarb for Respondent Guardian Ad Litem Program.
PER CURIAM.

Denied.- 2 -

KHOUZAM, SLEET, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4478

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MELISSA PRINE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CR-04-229) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 21, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Todd A. Twyman, TWYMAN LAW OFFICES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, Acting United States Attorney, W. Chad Noel, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Prine does not appeal her conviction. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Melissa Prine appeals her thirty-seven month prison sentence resulting from her conviction for delivery of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). *Finding no error, we affirm. Prine claims that the district court erred by not crediting her sentence for seven months of home confinement prior to her sentence. Contrary to Prine ’s claim, time spent on home confinement with electronic monitoring does not constitute time served in “official detention” under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (2000). Randall v. Whelan , 938 F.2d 522, 524 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Insley , 927 F.2d 185, 186 (4th Cir. 1991). Therefore, the district court properly declined to credit Prine’s sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Prine’s sentence. 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.

AFFIRMED
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed October 31, 2018.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18-1355

Lower Tribunal No. 17-14294

________________

Linezka Torres and Jorge Navarro, as Parents and Legal Guardians

of Lucas Navarro, their minor son,

Petitioners,

vs.

Variety Children's Hospital, a Florida Not for Profit Corporation,

d/b/a Nicklaus Children's Hospital,

Respondent.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Dennis J.

Murphy, Judge.

Goldberg & Rosen, P.A., and Judd G. Rosen and Mustafa H. Dandashly;

Eaton & Wolk, P.L., and Douglas F. Eaton, for petitioners.

Falk, Waas, Hernandez, Cortina, Solomon & Bonner, P.A., and Norman M.

Waas, Scott E. Solomon and Richard Warren, for respondent Variety Children’s

Hospital d/b/a Nicklaus Children’s Hospital; Radey Law Firm, and Thomas A.

Crabb and Lauren K. Thompson (Tallahassee), for Intervention Project for Nurses,

Inc.; Wicker Smith O’Hara McCoy & Ford, P.A., and Alyssa M. Reiter and

Lindsey A. Hicks, for Thomas James Sprufera, III.
Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Linezka Torres and Jorge Navarro, as parents and legal guardians of Lucas

Navarro, their minor son (collectively, “the plaintiffs”), seek certiorari review of

the order denying their request for an in camera inspection of a portion of Thomas

Sprufera’s patient file held by Intervention Project for Nurses, Inc. (“IPN”). We

grant the petition, quash the trial court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ request for an

in camera inspection, and direct the trial court to reconsider the plaintiffs’ motion

seeking an order from the trial court authorizing the release of these records

following its in camera inspection.1

Certiorari granted; order quashed with directions.

1 This Court takes no position on the merits of the plaintiffs’ motion seeking an

order from the trial court authorizing IPN to release these documents.

2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Board of Directors
SigmaTron International, Inc.
Elk Grove, Illinois

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-20147 and 333-52044) of SigmaTron International,
Inc. and Subsidiaries (the "Company") of our report dated July 7, 2006, relating
to the consolidated financial statements of income, stockholders' equity and
cash flows for the year then ended, which appears in the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K.


/s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
Chicago, Illinois
July 25, 2006
Exhibit






United States Steel Corporation 
Non-Employee Director Stock Program 
of the 2016 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan 
 


While this Program is in effect, United States Steel Corporation will supplement the fees paid to each non-employee director of the Corporation with a one-time grant of shares of common stock of the Corporation. The number of shares of common stock to be granted shall be equal to that number of shares purchased in an open market transaction or transactions by the director during the six months following the effective date on which such non-employee director first becomes a member of the Board of Directors, up to a maximum grant of 1,000 shares of common stock. If the non-employee director is prohibited from making an open market purchase due to a special trading blackout period imposed under the Corporation’s Insider Trading Policy during any portion of the six-month period, the six-month period shall be extended by the number of days during which purchases were prohibited due to that special trading blackout.   The grant will be made no later than the fifth business day following the date on which open market shares were purchased. 
 
The shares issued under this Program will be registered under the Securities Act of 1933; however, these shares will be subject to the provisions of the securities laws pertaining to shares acquired from an issuer, including Rule 144 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which laws affect the transferability of such shares. 
 
Effective November 1, 2019.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 19
- 00152
- CR CHRISTOPHER VANSICKL E , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 19th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013
- 1550
- C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Christopher Vansickle appeals the trial court’s denial of his Motion for Time Credit Dispute Resolution, in which he sought credit on his sentence for time he spent in a state substance abuse facility as a condition of his community supervision. The State has filed a Motion to Dismiss Vansickle’s appeal for l ack of jurisdiction on the grounds that Vansickle is inappropriately appealing the denial of a motion for judgmentVansickle v. State Page 2

nunc pro tunc. 1 Whether construed as an appeal from the denial of a request for a nunc pro tunc judgment or of a request for credit for tim e served, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. The right of appeal in criminal cases is conferred by the Legislature, and a defendant may appeal only from judgments of conviction or orders authorized as appealable. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 44.02; T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.2(a)(2); see also Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“‘[T]he standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.’” (quoti ng Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694, 696

- 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008))). The appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a post

- judgment denial of a motion for credit for time served. Abbott , 271 S.W.3d at 697.
Because we lack jurisdiction, t his appeal is dismissed. As our dismissal is not based upon the grounds raised in the State’s Motion to Dismiss, we dismiss the State’s
motion as moot. Notwithstanding that we are dismissing this appeal, Vansickle may file a motion
for reh earing with this Court within 15 days after this opinion and judgment are rendered if he believes this opinion and judgment are erroneously based on inaccurate information
or documents. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 49.1. Moreover, if Vansickle desires to have the opinion

1 In his brief filed on July 11, 2019, Vansickle refers to his motion as a “pro se motion Nunc Pro Tunc.” However, in his reply to the State’s Motion to Dismiss, Vansickle clarifies that the order he is appealing is not the denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc but the denial of a motion for credit for time served.Vansickle v. State Page 3

and judgment of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days after either the day this Court's judgment is rendered or the day the last timely moti on for rehearing is overruled by this Court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2(a).

REX D. DAVIS Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed September 11, 2019 Do not publish [CR25]
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4216 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4216

    To require that jewelry boxes imported from another country be 
              indelibly marked with the country of origin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 26, 1996

   Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require that jewelry boxes imported from another country be 
              indelibly marked with the country of origin.

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

SECTION 1. MARKING OF IMPORTED JEWELRY BOXES.

    (a) Marking Requirement.--By no later than the date that is 1 year 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
Treasury shall prescribe and implement regulations that require that 
all jewelry boxes described in subsection (b) that enter, or are 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, in the customs territory of 
the United States have the English name of the country of origin 
indelibly marked in a conspicuous place on such jewelry boxes by 
cutting, die-sinking, engraving, stamping, or some other permanent 
method. The exceptions from marking requirements provided in section 
304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304) shall not apply to 
jewelry boxes subject to this section.
    (b) Jewelry.--The jewelry boxes referred to in subsection (a) are 
jewelry boxes provided for in headings 4202.92.60, 4202.92.90, and 
4202.99.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
                                 <all>
```