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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 30 Sep 97, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         3977000
<SECURITIES>                                  19122000
<RECEIVABLES>                                 33614000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    872000
<INVENTORY>                                   33788000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              92782000
<PP&E>                                        96338000
<DEPRECIATION>                                40878000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               167158000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         48201000
<BONDS>                                       13731000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        142000
<OTHER-SE>                                   100772000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 167158000
<SALES>                                      126522000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             126522000
<CGS>                                         76361000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 76361000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              38618000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              694000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               10849000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3526000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            7323000
<DISCONTINUED>                                  325000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   7648000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 160 (Monday, August 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 48236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19023]



[[Page 48236]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1766-DR]


Indiana; Amendment No. 18 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1766-DR), dated June 8, 2008, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 8, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following 
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of June 8, 2008.

    Wayne County for Public Assistance (already designated for 
Individual Assistance and emergency protective measures [Category 
B], limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public 
Assistance program.)

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-19023 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 63

To prohibit the admission to the United States as refugees of individuals

who served in the armed forces of Iraq during the Persian Gulf conflict.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. LIVINGSTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prohibit the admission to the United States as refugees

of individuals who served in the armed forces of Iraq

during the Persian Gulf conflict.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF ADMISSION TO THE UNITED

4 STATES AS REFUGEES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO

5 SERVED IN THE ARMED FORCES OF IRAQ

6 DURING THE PERSIAN GULF CONFLICT.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b) and not8 withstanding any other provision of law, an individual who

9 served in the armed forces of Iraq for any period during

10 the Persian Gulf conflict may not be admitted to the Unit-
2

•HR 63 IH

1 ed States as a refugee under the Immigration and Nation2 ality Act.

3 (b) CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION.—The prohibition

4 under subsection (a) shall not apply to an individual who

5 is determined by the Attorney General—

6 (1) to have assisted United States or United

7 Nations coalition forces during the Persian Gulf con8 flict before or after capture by such coalition forces;

9 and

10 (2) not to have participated in any activities as

11 an individual or as a member of the armed forces of

12 Iraq which would be considered internationally rec13 ognized war crimes or crimes against humanity.

14 (c) PERSIAN GULF CONFLICT DEFINED.—For pur15 poses of this section, the term ‘‘Persian Gulf conflict’’

16 means the period beginning on August 2, 1990, and end17 ing on February 27, 1991.

Æ
18272.

#### Klebold *v.*Klebold, *alias*Venturis.

Submitted July 14, 1953

Decided September 14, 1953.

Habeas corpus. Before Judge Guess. DeKalb Superior Court. *W. Harvey Armistead,*for plaintiff in error.

*Guy Tyler,*contra.

In the present case the father of a minor child brought habeas corpus proceedings to obtain the custody of the child from the mother, who had been awarded custody in a divorce action between the parents. The father alleged that the mother had become unfit to have the care of the child since the date of the divorce decree.

On the trial of the issue, considerable evidence was introduced to show that the mother had not lived an exemplary life since the time when the custody of the child had been awarded to her. There was also evidence that the father had not completely fulfilled his obligation to pay alimony for the support of the child during a part of the period since the decree in the divorce case, and that he had entirely failed to support the child a part of the time. The evidence indicated that for approximately six months prior to the institution of the habeas corpus proceedings the mother had provided the child with a wholesome environment.

Head, Justice.

1. “In a contest between the father and mother over the custody of a minor child in a habeas corpus proceeding the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration, and an award made by the judge based upon the evidence and in the exercise of a sound discretion will not be set aside.” *Attaway*v. *Attaway,*194 *Ga.*448 (22 S. E. 2d 50); *Pruitt*v. *Butterfield,*189 *Ga.*593 (6 S. E. 2d 786); *Willingham*v. *Willingham,*192 *Ga.*405 (15 S. E. 2d 514).

2. Under the evidence in this case, both parents had been delinquent in performing their legal and moral obligations to their minor child. The judgment of the trial judge, finding that it is to the best interest of the child to remain with her mother, was not without evidence to support it.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, PJ., not participating.*
<PAGE>







                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                                           
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed
registration statements of Boardwalk Casino, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No.'s
333-05019 and 333-05021) of our report dated November 27, 1996, except for notes
6 and 7 as to which the date is January 6, 1997, on our audits of the
financial statements of Boardwalk Casino, Inc. as of and for the years ended
September 30, 1996 and 1995, included in the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1996.




COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Las Vegas, Nevada
January 6, 1997
#### Frehiwot AYELE, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE; John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Respondents.

No. 02-1802.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 18, 2003.

Decided March 26, 2003.

Manuel Rivera, Jr., Arlington, Virginia, for Petitioner. Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Senior Litigation, Russell J.E. Verby, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Frehiwot Ayele, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) decision and order affirming, without opinion, her appeal from the immigration judge’s order finding her removable and denying her applications for asylum and withholding of removal.

On appeal, Ayele claims that the Board erred in affirming the decision of the immigration judge without opinion, after review by a single Board member, in accordance with the procedure set out in 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(a)(7) (2002). We have reviewed the administrative record and the formal briefs on appeal and find Ayele’s challenges to the Board’s use of the streamlined review procedure to be without merit. *See Albathani v. INS,*318 F.3d 365, 375-79 (1st Cir.2003). We further find that summary affirmance was appropriate in this case under the factors set forth in § 3.1(a)(7)(ii).

Accordingly, we deny Ayele’s petition for review. 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 DENIED.*
#### Robert Bates, Respondent, v. Parke A. Davis, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
200 La. 398

#### STATE ex rel. WILLIS v. GENERAL LONGSHORE WORKERS, Inc.

No. 36589.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 27, 1942.

Clarence E. Strauch and George P. No-sacka, both of New Orleans, for plaintiff and appellee.

E. H. Gosserand, of New Orleans, for defendant and appellant.

PONDER, Justice.

The relator, Robert Willis, brought mandamus proceedings against the respondent, General Longshore Workers, Inc., also known as General Longshore International Longshoremen’s Association, Local Union No. 1419, seeking to compel his reinstatement as vice president and member of the board of directors or executive committee of the respondent organization, which offices he claims he was divested of by the illegal act of the respondent. Upon trial, the lower court gave judgment in favor of the relator, ordering his reinstatement and the payment of his salary up to and including January 25, 1942. The respondent has appealed.

After the appeal was lodged in this court, the relator moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the respondent organization had confessed judgment in a written declaration filed by it under date of July 23, 1941, and on the further grounds, that the exceptions of no cause and no right of action and the exception to -the jurisdiction ratione materiae, the only pleadings filed by the respondent in these proceedings, were not timely filed.

Counsel' for the relator contends that the respondent has confessed judgment and is without right of appeal. In support of this contention, he cites Article 567 of the Code of Practice; Hewitt, Heran & Co. v. Nolan Stewart’s Executor and D. P. Cain, 11 La.Ann. 100; and Succession of Joseph Mausberg, 37 La.Ann. 126.

The record shows that the purported confession of judgment was filed by relator and not by the respondent. One of the disputes in this case is whether the pur*69ported document was signed by parties who had authority to act for or bind the respondent .organization. It was contended in the lower court that the parties who signed the document were neither officers nor members of any board authorized to conduct the affairs of or bind the respondent, and testimony was taken with respect thereto. Under the circumstances presented in this case, we would have to pass on the merits to determine the question.

A justiciable question brought up by appeal will not be considered on motion to dismiss. Drewes & Co. v. Ham & Seymour, 157 La. 861, 103 So. 241; Gottlieb v. Avery Realty Co., 180 La. 621, 157 So. 369. The merits of an appeal cannot be considered on hearing of a motion to dismiss the appeal. Article 895, Code of Practice; Succession of Lissa, 194 La. 328, 193 So. 663; Succession of Price, 196 La. 172, 198 So. 894.

The question of whether or not the exceptions were timely filed is also a matter to be taken up on the hearing of the appeal.

For the reasons assigned, the motion to dismiss is denied.
#### Patrick M. Carolan and Others, as Executors, etc., of Neal O’Donnell, Deceased, Respondents, v. Thomas Bracken, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0542 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ERIC JOE JAYNES,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 29 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 23 2024

02/23/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0542
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,877,579
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  267,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                113,962,987
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      27,188,874
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,261,437
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             149,501,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     80,375,441
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          462,553
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,652,484
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               149,501,701<F1>
<SALES>                                     68,163,843
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            73,642,852
<CGS>                                       60,453,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               84,662,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,224,352
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             518,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (24,763,060)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (1,131,359)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (23,631,710)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (23,631,701)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (5.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (5.11)
<FN>
<F1>COMPANY REPORTS ON A NON-CLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, in his capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of FGX International Holdings Limited (the "Company"), hereby certifies
that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended January 2, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

March 8, 2010

/s/ ANTHONY DI PAOLA Anthony Di Paola Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>   1

                                                -------------------------
                                                    [GALLORO LOGO]
                                                -------------------------

                                                     Sao Paulo, March 25, 1997

SELFCARE, INC.



                           Re: CPEI ORGENICS LTDA.



                 "CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS"

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our reports
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made apart of this Form
10-KSB, into the Company's previously filed Registration Statement Nos.
33-15583 and 33-17855.

                                          GALLORO & ASSOCIADOS
                                          Auditores Independentes S/C
                                          CRC - SP n 05.851



                                          /s/ VICTOR DOMINGOS GALLORO
                                          Socio-Director
                                          CT-CRC-SP n 44.278
                                          Certified Public Accountant in Brazil
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10899

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

TABITHA MCKENZIE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus

CHIEF JUDGE, 

CASEY T. BARREN,

Lawyer for DCF, 

LISA TANNER,

Case Manager, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

USCA11 Case: 24-10899 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10899

BRITTNEY BAXTER, 

Case Manager, 

Defendant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 4:23-cv-00470-WS-MJF

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Tabitha McKenzie filed the instant notice of appeal on 

March 20, 2024, asserting that she seeks review in this Court of 

what she described as a final order or judgment entered on January 

8, 2024. She also described the appealed order but, while we can 

discern that the appealed order is connected to a magistrate judge, 

we cannot discern the full description. 

Because no final order or judgment was entered on January 

8, 2024 and, instead, two magistrate judge orders were signed that 

date, we asked the parties to address which order or orders the notice of appeal evinces an intent to challenge. We also asked 

whether the appeal was taken from a final or otherwise appealable 

order and whether the appeal is timely. No party responded. 

USCA11 Case: 24-10899 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2024 Page: 2 of 3
24-10899 Opinion of the Court 3

However, McKenzie has filed documents on appeal that indicate 

that she challenges the denial of her motion to appoint counsel. 

The magistrate judge originally denied that motion in an order entered on January 9, 2024, but signed January 8, and the district 

judge later affirmed that order and denied reconsideration on January 24 and February 5, respectively. After considering temporal 

proximity, the text of the notice of appeal, and McKenzie’s appellate filings, we construe her notice of appeal as challenging the district judge’s January 24 and February 5, 2024 orders concerning her 

motion for appointment of counsel. 

However, those orders are not final because McKenzie’s 

claims remain pending in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; 

Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (11th 

Cir. 2012). Furthermore, the orders are not otherwise immediately 

appealable. See Hodges v. Dep’t of Corr., 895 F.2d 1360, 1361-62 (11th 

Cir. 1990). 

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 

USCA11 Case: 24-10899 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 08/26/2024 Page: 3 of 3
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 7, 2011

s0131 

# Order

February 7, 2011

141866

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141866 COA: 290259 Wayne CC: 08-004816-FC DEWAYNE MARQUIS BINYARD, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 12, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### KING DAVID BENEV. SOC. OF SCOTLANDVILLE, LA. v. KING DAVID BAPTIST CHURCH OF SCOTLANDVILLE, LA.

No. 2946.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 3, 1947.

Cashio & Cashio, of Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Dudley L. Weber, of Baton Rouge, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The prayer of the plaintiff’s petition is that a sale of the property involved in the suit, which is .valued at $2,500, be set aside and in the alternative that there be judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in that sum.

Clearly this Court is without jurisdiction. It becomes our duty to take notice of the situation and to transfer the case to the Supreme Court under the provisions of Act 19 of 1912.

It it therefore ordered that, in accordance with the provisions of said Act, the appeal in this case be transferred to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the finality of this decree.