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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      13,128
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                            9,616,883
<ALLOWANCES>                              (829,280)
<INVENTORY>                                144,799
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        10,102,751
<PP&E>                                  12,568,094
<DEPRECIATION>                          (4,701,850)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          18,449,379
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   15,859,624
<BONDS>                                  2,827,908
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     1,576
<OTHER-SE>                                (239,153)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            18,449,379
<SALES>                                 24,510,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        24,512,795
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           24,308,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          (434,280)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         859,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (603,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (603,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (603,386)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (.046)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (.046)


</TABLE>
|What's New · 
	What's Next · 
	Site Map · 
	A-Z Index · 
	Careers · 
	RSS · 
	All Videos · 
	Current FAQs |  | Search Advanced Search | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed

    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy

    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Selected Interest Rates (Daily) - H.15 Current Release

About
Announcements
Technical Q&As
 Historical Data Historical data are now exclusively available from the DDP: https://www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Choose.aspx?rel=H15  Home Economic Research & Data
 Accessibility Contact us Disclaimer Website policies FOIA
 PDF Reader
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00566-CR

Joe Ed Davis, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 391ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-12-0989-SB, THE HONORABLE THOMAS J. GOSSETT, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Joe Ed Davis seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for indecency

with a child by sexual contact. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1). Appellant’s sentence was

imposed on April 14, 2014. Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial on May 13, 2014. 

Therefore, the deadline for perfecting appeal was July 14, 2014. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). 

Notice of appeal was filed in the trial court on September 4, 2014. On September 8, 2014, appellant

filed a motion requesting an extension of time for filing the notice of appeal in this Court.

The Rules of Appellate Procedure allow an appellate court to extend the time to file

the notice of appeal if, within 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the appellant: 

(1) files the notice of appeal in the trial court, and (2) files a motion for extension in the appellate

court. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Here, both the notice of appeal and the motion for extension of

time were filed more than 15 days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal: the notice of
appeal was filed in the trial court 52 days after the deadline, the motion for extension was filed in

this Court 56 days after the deadline. Thus, both are untimely and we are without authority to extend

the time to file the notice of appeal. See Strange v. State, 258 S.W.3d 184, 186–87 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. ref’d) (“The limited, 15-day extended time period applies to

both the notice [of appeal] and the motion for extension; both must be filed within the 15-day time

period.”). The motion for extension is denied.

The timely filing of a written notice of appeal is essential to vest this Court with

jurisdiction. Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Olivo v. State,

918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Because appellant failed to timely file a notice of

appeal in compliance with Rule 26 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, we lack jurisdiction to

dispose of this attempted appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. 

See Castillo, 369 S.W.3d at 198. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 19, 2014

Do Not Publish

2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51531-51532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20346]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,235]


Southprint, Inc., Reidsville Division, Reidsville, NC; Notice of 
Negative Determination on Reconsideration

    On July 31, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on August 7, 2008 (73 FR 46037).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of screen-printing for apparel did 
not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm 
and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred.
    In the request for reconsideration the petitioner alleged that 
business at the subject firm declined because the subject firm's 
customers shifted screen-printing for apparel to foreign facilities. 
The petitioner provided an additional list of customers and alleged 
that these customers are importing screen-printing for apparel.
    On reconsideration the Department of Labor surveyed these declining 
customers regarding their purchases of products like or directly 
competitive with screen-printing for apparel during 2006, 2007 and 
January through March, 2008 over the corresponding 2007 period. The 
survey revealed that the customers did not import products like or 
directly competitive with screen-printing for apparel during the 
relevant period.
    The fact that the subject firm's customers are shifting their 
production abroad is not relevant to this investigation. According to 
section (a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act, in order to be eligible for TAA on 
the basis of a shift in production abroad, the shift in production must 
be implemented by the subject firm or its subdivision.
    In this case, the subject firm did not import screen-printing for 
apparel nor was there a shift in production from subject firm abroad 
during the relevant period.

Conclusion

    After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative 
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance 
for workers and former workers of Southprint, Inc., Reidsville 
Division, Reidsville, North Carolina.


[[Page 51532]]


    Signed at Washington, DC this 26th day of August, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-20346 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andres Ayala, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, burglary in the second degree, sodomy in the first degree and assault in the second degree, defendant contends that the *876verdict was against the weight of the evidence. That contention is without merit. The testimony of defendant’s accomplice, Baez, was amply corroborated by the testimony of the victims and by evidence of the admissions made by defendant to a jail house informant. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J.—attempted murder, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER08-1438-000]

Take notice that on August 22, 2008, New York Independent System Operator, Inc. tendered for filing amendments to the Market Administration and Control Area Services Tariff, including Attachments C and J.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov*, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov*, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 5, 2008.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-20506 Filed 9-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**EXHIBIT
  32.**1



**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 quarterly
  Report of
  PRINCETON
  AMERICAN CORPORATION
  (the "Company")
  on Form 10-QSB
  for the period
  ending August
  31, 2003 as
  filed with
  the Securities
  and Exchange
  Commission
  on the date
  hereof (the
  "Report"),
  pursuant to
  18 U.S.C.
  § 1350,
  as adopted
  pursuant to
  § 906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002,
  I, William
  Taylor, Chief
  Executive
  Officer of
  the Company,
  certify, that
  to the best
  of my knowledge:



(1)  The
  Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.





/s/
  William Taylor

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

William
  Taylor

Chairman,
  Chief Executive
  Officer and
  Director



October 14, 2003









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



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906
  HAS BEEN PROVIDED
  TO PRINCETON
  AMERICAN CORPORATION
  AND WILL BE
  RETAINED BY
  PRINCETON
  AMERICAN CORPORATION
  AND FURNISHED
  TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST
#### SNOW v. McEWEN. *

No. 4681.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Feb. 5, 1934.

J. B. Crow, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Irion & Switzer, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

*

Rehearing denied March *2,*1934.

DREW, Judge.

On April 28, 1933, judgment was rendered in the lower court in this case. On May 22, 1933, motion for a new trial was overruled and an appeal granted to this court and made returnable on July 3, 1933. On June 1, 1933, the appeal bond was filed. On June 6, 1933, petition and order for rule to test surety on appeal bond was filed and said rule was made absolute on June 8, 1933. On June 12, 1933, supplemental appeal bond was filed.

This transcript was -filed in this court on July 7, 1933, the fourth day after the return day. On July 10th, following, motion to dismiss the appeal was filed by appellee, based on the ground that the appeal was not returned within the return day, or the three days of grace allowed thereafter.

Appellant has failed to show or to attempt to show that the failure of the transcript to be filed in this court on time was not his fault. He relies solely on the proposition that the three days of grace do not include a legal holiday — July 4th — in this instance. Under Act No. 92 of 1900 and Act No. 106 of 1908, the three days of grace allowed for filing the transcript of appeal are calendar days and therefore include dies non. Appellant did not ask for an extension of time or that the case be remanded. Brooks v. Smith, 118 La. 758, 43 So. 399; Martin v. Gary, 132 La. 246, 61 So. 218; Keplinger v. Barrow, 132 La. 244, 61 So. 217; Code of Practice, arts. 587, 883; New Iberia Nat. Bank v. Lyons et al., 164 La. 1017, 115 So. 130.

It therefore follows that, unless appellant has shown that the failure to file the transcript in this court within the return day and three calendar days allowed as days of grace is not due to his fault, the appeal will bei dismissed.

It is not contended by appellant that it was not through his fault that the transcript was not filed in this court on time.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the appeal is dismissed, at appellant’s cost.
**EXHIBIT 32(b)****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Henry G. Schopfer, III., Chief Financial Officer of Peerless Mfg. Co. (the “Company”), certify,that pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code:(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period endedDecember 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in theReport.       /s/ Henry G. Schopfer, III Henry G. Schopfer, III    Chief Financial Officer    Date: February 14, 2006  *The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is notbeing filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the datehereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.*
EXHIBIT 32.2



I, Stephen E. Lerch, Chief Operating Officer, Dining, and Chief Financial Officer of iDine Rewards Network Inc., certify to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:



(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the Periodic Report) which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and



(2) information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of iDine Rewards Network Inc.



Dated: August 14, 2003



|/s/ Stephen E. Lerch                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Stephen E. Lerch                                                                     
|Executive Vice President,Chief Operating Officer - Dining, andChief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Sarah M. Haefner, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Queens County,

December 13, 1956.

*George Kent Weldon*for proponent.

Anthony P. Savarese, S.

Decedent died on March 17, 1956, and was survived by four children, all adults. Thereafter there was found among her effects a conformed carbon copy of a testamentary instrument alleged to have been executed by her *836on July 26, 1938. The executor named therein seeks to probate same on the ground that the executed original thereof was lost by the attorney-draftsman. According to the terms of the submitted instrument, testatrix gave a legacy of $200 to a priest for Masses for her deceased husband and herself and the rest and residue in equal shares to her four children who have consented to the probate thereof.

Upon the hearing the attorney-draftsman testified that he prepared the will, supervised the execution thereof and acted with another, now deceased, as the attesting witnesses, and that both of them affixed their subscriptions below the signature of the testatrix and also below the attestation certificate. He further stated that the notation appearing on the copy that the original was in his possession was made by him at the time of the execution, and that the date of the instrument, the name of the testatrix and those of the attesting witnesses with their addresses were filled in by him on the copy. He further said that he moved his office from Manhattan to Queens in 1941, and that, in the process of moving, he inadvertently misfiled or lost the executed instrument and that, although he made a diligent and thorough search, he has been unable to find the same. He further stated that testatrix never requested the return of the same. His testimony satisfies the court that the original instrument after execution was never in the possession of the testatrix, and' that it was lost or mislaid while in his exclusive possession. He identified the propounded instrument as a conformed copy of the original will and this identification together with his testimony is sufficient proof of the contents as required by section 143 of the Surrogate’s Court Act. The evidence convincingly establishes that the will was duly executed, that testatrix at the time of execution Avas free from restraint and competent to make a will. The propounded instrument will be admitted to probate as a correct copy of decedent’s will and may be established in and by the decree which may also dispense with the testimony of the deceased witness. Submit decree accordingly.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrell Ellis, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, Drury, J.—robbery, second degree.) Present— Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
No. 72-1248.

#### Multari Equipment Corp. et al. *v.*New York.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 2d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
#### W. P. BROWN & SONS LUMBER CO. v. Andrew CROSSLEY.

6 Div. 686.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 16, 1935.

O. E. Young, of Vernon, and S. T. Wright, of Payette, for appellant'.

Pennington *&*Tweedy, -of Jasper, and Wilson Kelley, of Vernon, for appellee.

POSTER, Justice.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed! on authority of W. P. Brown & Sons Lbr. Co> v. Walter Crossley (Ala. Sup.) 161 So. 536, this day decided.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-26-1999
<CASH>                                              49
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                       466
<INVENTORY>                                     13,311
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,521
<PP&E>                                          40,514
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,733
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,085
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,579
<SALES>                                         16,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,406
<CGS>                                           12,051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,335
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (13)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (61)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 485
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    599
<INCOME-TAX>                                       240
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                359
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       359
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        


</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 

23, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00788-CR

BILLY JOE DAVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Austin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19CR-35320

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Billy Joe Davis has signed and filed a written motion to dismiss his

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an opinion, 

we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant 

Do Not Publish – Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)