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


<ARTICLE>   5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,496,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    134,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,853,000
<PP&E>                                      10,619,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,332,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,631,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,764,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,688,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,631,000
<SALES>                                     10,563,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,834,000
<CGS>                                          434,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,467,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,827,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (8,894,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (8,894,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                659,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (8,235,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (5.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5.95)
                                           


</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 605 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit kindergarten through 

grade 12 educational expenses to be paid from a 529 account. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2021 

Mr. SMITH of Missouri (for himself, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. KELLY

of Pennsylvania, Mr. REED, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. 

GAETZ, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, and Mrs. RODGERS of Washington) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit 

kindergarten through grade 12 educational expenses to 

be paid from a 529 account. 

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 ‘‘Student Empowerment 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 605 IH

1 SEC. 2. 529 ACCOUNT FUNDING FOR HOMESCHOOL AND AD2 DITIONAL ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EX3 PENSES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 529(c)(7) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(7) TREATMENT OF ELEMENTARY AND SEC7 ONDARY TUITION.—Any reference in this section to 

8 the term ‘qualified higher education expense’ shall 

9 include a reference to the following expenses in con10 nection with enrollment or attendance at, or for stu11 dents enrolled at or attending, an elementary or sec12 ondary public, private, or religious school: 

13 ‘‘(A) Tuition. 

14 ‘‘(B) Curriculum and curricular materials. 

15 ‘‘(C) Books or other instructional mate16 rials. 

17 ‘‘(D) Online educational materials. 

18 ‘‘(E) Tuition for tutoring or educational 

19 classes outside of the home, including at a tu20 toring facility, but only if the tutor or instruc21 tor is not related to the student and— 

22 ‘‘(i) is licensed as a teacher in any 

23 State, 

24 ‘‘(ii) has taught at an eligible edu25 cational institution, or 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 605 IH

1 ‘‘(iii) is a subject matter expert in the 

2 relevant subject. 

3 ‘‘(F) Fees for a nationally standardized 

4 norm-referenced achievement test, an advanced 

5 placement examination, or any examinations re6 lated to college or university admission. 

7 ‘‘(G) Fees for dual enrollment in an insti8 tution of higher education. 

9 ‘‘(H) Educational therapies for students 

10 with disabilities provided by a licensed or ac11 credited practitioner or provider, including oc12 cupational, behavioral, physical, and speech-lan13 guage therapies. 

14 Such term shall include expenses for the purposes 

15 described in subparagraphs (A) through (H) in con16 nection with a homeschool (whether treated as a 

17 homeschool or a private school for purposes of appli18 cable State law).’’. 

19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

20 this section shall apply to distributions made after the 

21 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steve LINDQUIST, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-30064.

D.C. No. CR-01-00030-DWM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 19, 2003.

*943Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Steve Lindquist appeals the 37-month sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to knowing possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Lindquist’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), identifying one potential issue for review. Lindquist has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel has identified one potential issue: whether the district court should have given Lindquist an opportunity to present witnesses to prove the extent of his cooperation with the government, after the government declined to move under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 for a substantial assistance departure.

The government declined to make a substantial assistance motion because Lindquist had not cooperated to its satisfaction. Because the plea agreement left it to the government to decide, in its discretion, whether Lindquist’s cooperation constituted substantial assistance, Lindquist’s evidence of his cooperation was not relevant to the district court’s sentencing decision. *See United States v. Johnson,*187 F.3d 1129, 1134 (9th Cir.1999) (explaining that federal courts enforce the literal terms of plea agreements). Moreover, absent an allegation of unconstitutional motive by the government, the district court had no authority to grant the section 5K1.1 motion. *See United States v. Burrows,*36 F.3d 875, 884 (9th Cir.1994) (“Section 5K1.1 deliberately removes from judges the determination of whether or not a given quantum of assistance is substantial, and leaves the decision to prosecutors.”). The proposed issue is not, therefore, a basis for appeal.

Our examination of counsel’s brief and our independent review of the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), disclose no further issues for review. Accordingly, *944counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rel: April 12, 2024

STATE OF ALABAMA -- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

SC-2023-0946 Jereme R. Peet v. Jefferson F. Vinson, Sr., and Mathew V. Vinson (Appeal from Henry Circuit Court: CV-21-900002). COOK, Justice. AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Ala. R. App. P. Parker, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
#### Alexander S. Scobell, Appellant, v. Wilder Realty Company, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All. concurred, except Kruse, J., who dissented.
#### Board of Park Commrs. of Cleveland Metropolitan Park Dist. *v.*The Glen Valley Club et al.

(No. 23792

Decided December 7, 1932.)

*Messrs. Locker, Green S Woods,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. H. F. Payer,*for defendants in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Jones, Matthias, Day and Stephenson, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18015]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of a U.S. Government-Owned 
Patent

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7 
(a)(I)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, 
royalty-bearing, revocable license to U.S. Patent No. 7,094,417, issued 
August 22, 2006, entitled ``Fish Hatching Method and Apparatus,'' and 
U.S. Patent Application No. 11/340,757 filed January 27, 2006 entitled, 
``Fish Hatching Method and Apparatus,'' and foreign rights to Diapause 
Research Foundation, with its principal place of business at 1924 
Creighton Road, Pensacola, FL 32504.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 
ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, 
Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, 
Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664. For patent 
issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808, both at 
telefax (301) 619-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of 
this license can file written objections along with supporting 
evidence, if any, 15 days from the date of this publication. Written 
objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see 
ADDRESSES).

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-18015 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
210 La. 1019

#### Succession of IMWOLDE.

No. 37698.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 13, 1946.

Lewis A. Giraud, of New Orleans, for opponents and appellants.

K. V. Richard and Alwyn J. Justrabo, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

KENNON, Justice.

Miss Sophie Imwolde died in New Orleans on May 25,' 1944, leaving no ascendants nor descendents. Her will, olographic in form and filed for probate in the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans, named George J. H. Huerkamp, a cousin, as universal legatee. Her two nieces (heirs at law had Mrs. Imwolde died intestate) filed an opposition to the probate of the will on the ground that the same was not entirely written, dated and signed by the testatrix.

The district court rendered judgment declaring the last will and testament “to have been entirely written, dated and signed by the decedent herein, Miss Sophie Im-wolde”, dismissing the opposition of appellants and confirming George J. H. Huer-kamp as dative testamentary executor. The heirs at law have appealed to this Court.

The only question in this case is one of fact, that is, whether or not the will was written by the testatrix.

The document in the record reads as follows:

> “I will all my property at my death to my cousin George J. PI. Huerkamp on the condition that he supports me for the remainder of my life.

> New Orleans, Louisiana

> April 1, 1944

> Miss Sophie Imwolde

> I accept and will carry out tire above agreement.

> George J. H. Huerkamp.”

The opponents concede that the central portion of the document — “New Orleans, Louisiana, April 1, 1944, Miss Sophie.Im-wolde” — is in the handwriting of the deceased, but contend that the portion above-the central part was written in the same handwriting and by the same person as the last sentence, which was, admittedly, written by George J. H. Huerkamp, legatee. A careful examination of the instrument does not lead us to that conclusion. On the contrary, after study of the record and the original will, we conclude, as did the *49district court, that the body of the will, as well as the date, place and signature, is in the handwriting of the testatrix.

It is not strange that the testatrix favored the cousin over her nieces. During the years prior to her death she maintained a rather close relationship with this cousin and his wife, visiting with them on Sundays and using his services in the handling of her business affairs. The nieces, both of whom lived in New Orleans, testified that they had seen their aunt, who also lived in New Orleans, only twice during the nine years prior to her death.

Judgment affirmed with costs.
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 Sonic Solutions (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, A. Clay Leighton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at
the dates and for the periods indicated.



This certification has not been, and
shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Date: June 14, 2004



|    |  |                                                                                            
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ A. Clay Leighton                                                                       
|    |  | Name: A. Clay Leighton Title:  Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                       ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE COMPANIES INC.
                         COMPUTATION OF INCOME PER SHARE
                   for the three months and nine months ended
                           September 30, 1997 and 1996
                      (in thousands, except per share data)
                                   (unaudited)
                                   Exhibit 11

                                   Three Months              Nine Months
                               --------------------      ------------------- 
                                 1997         1996         1997         1996
                               --------     -------      -------      ------- 
<S>                            <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
PRIMARY INCOME 
  PER SHARE:
Net income                     $18,808      $17,318      $26,964      $24,821
                               =======      =======      =======      =======

Weighted average number
 of shares outstanding          15,067       14,963       15,036       14,919

Adjustment for stock
  options                          249          225          221          172
                               -------      -------      -------      -------

Adjusted weighted 
  average number of 
  shares outstanding            15,316       15,188       15,257       15,091
                               =======      =======      =======      =======

Primary income 
  per share                    $  1.23      $ 1.14       $  1.77      $ 1.64 
                               =======      =======      =======      =======

FULLY DILUTED INCOME
  PER SHARE:
Net income                     $18,808      $17,318      $26,964      $24,821 
                               =======      =======      =======      =======

Weighted average number
  of shares outstanding         15,087       15,203       15,203       15,159

Adjustment for stock 
  options                          324          291          335          249
                               -------      -------      -------      -------
Adjusted weighted 
  average number of
  shares outstanding            15,411       15,494       15,538       15,408
                               =======      =======      =======      =======

Fully diluted income
  per share                    $  1.22      $ 1.12       $  1.74      $ 1.61 
                               =======      =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>
#### Central New York Telephone and Telegraph Company, Appellant, *v.*Charles S. Averill and G. Fred Gregory, Respondents.

(No. 2.)

Fourth Department,

January 6, 1909.

See head note in *Central New York Tel. & Tel. Co.*v. *Averill, No. 1, ante,*p. 752.

Appeal by the plaintiff, the Central New York Telephone and Telegraph Company, from part of a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Onondaga on the 25th day of March, 1908, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Onondaga Trial Term, a jury having been waived.

*763*Edwin Nottingham,*for the appellant.

*A. H. Cowie,*for the respondents.

Spring, J.:

This action was commenced to recover $1,659 for rentals due the plaintiff for telephone service in pursuance of an agreement between the parties. There was a further demand of $119 not connected with the agreement. There was no dispute over the amount of either charge, and judgment was allowed the plaintiff for the sum of $119.

The claim of the defendants is that the contract upon which the items for rentals were founded was illegal and void, and the court so held.

The question of the validity of the agreement has been disposed of by this court in an equity action between the same parties adversely to the contention of the defendants *(Central New York Tel. & Tel. Co.*v. *Averill, No. 1,*129 App. Div. 752), and the decision in that case leads to a reversal of the judgment in this action so far as appealed from.

All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., who dissented.

Judgment, so far as appealed from, reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
Exhibit
23.1




Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm
  We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (Nos. 333-95361, 333-33986, 333-37630, 333-45818, 333-49628, 333-59346,
333-63514, 333-99559, 333-99673, 333-106420, 333-110729, 333-112611, 333-124959,
333-124961, 333-128497 and 333-129713), and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-74197, 333-86728
and 333-124960) of our report dated April 14, 2008, relating to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Arotech Corporation appearing in this Form
10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007.
  
 
 /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
 BDO
Seidman,
LLP
 
 
 
 Grand
Rapids, Michigan
 April 28,
2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6639

ORRANDY GOODWYN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; D. SCOTT DODRILL,Warden, Low Security Correctional InstitutionButner, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-63-5-HO) Submitted: July 19, 2002 Decided: August 23, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orrandy Goodwyn, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Orrandy Goodwyn seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Goodwyn v. United States , No. CA-02-63-5-HO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 2002). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                    5
<CIK>                                        0000916122
<NAME>                                       Arch Communications, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000
<CURRENCY>                                   USD

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                    Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                      Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             1
<CASH>                                                  2,381
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          61,167
<ALLOWANCES>                                           16,473
<INVENTORY>                                             9,101
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       84,523
<PP&E>                                                714,644
<DEPRECIATION>                                        314,445
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,345,146
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 164,784
<BONDS>                                               924,132
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                            172,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        1,345,146
<SALES>                                                50,435
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      641,824
<CGS>                                                  34,954
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          34,954
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      132,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       15,265
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    100,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (243,691)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (243,691)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                              (3,361)
<NET-INCOME>                                         (247,052)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.00


</TABLE>