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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1995              
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1995   
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         2,017,906
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,198,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    33,344,471
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               41,322,579
<PP&E>                                         7,094,330
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,906,723
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 50,189,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,742,175
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       202,539
<OTHER-SE>                                     25,998,117
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   50,189,596
<SALES>                                        50,658,141
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               57,754,310
<CGS>                                          33,571,389
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  54,106,687
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             436,492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,358,590
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,276,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,082,390
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .20
        


</TABLE>
Case 1:05-cv-00421-PB Document 44 Filed 11/01/06 Page 1 of 8Case 1:05-cv-00421-PB Document 44 Filed 11/01/06 Page 2 of 8Case 1:05-cv-00421-PB Document 44 Filed 11/01/06 Page 3 of 8Case 1:05-cv-00421-PB Document 44 Filed 11/01/06 Page 4 of 8Case 1:05-cv-00421-PB Document 44 Filed 11/01/06 Page 5 of 8Case 1:05-cv-00421-PB Document 44 Filed 11/01/06 Page 6 of 8Case 1:05-cv-00421-PB Document 44 Filed 11/01/06 Page 7 of 8Case 1:05-cv-00421-PB Document 44 Filed 11/01/06 Page 8 of 8
Exhibit 4.2




Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated August 9, 2019, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 1958 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-231485) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


         /s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


August 9, 2019
Order entered March 25, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01659-CV

ESTATE OF CLOYD D. YOUNG, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-09-02344-1

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s March 21, 2014 unopposed motion to suspend oral 

argument to allow time to finalize the parties’ settlement agreement. The motion states the 

parties have signed a settlement agreement and have a hearing set in the trial court on March 27, 

2014 to prove up the agreement. We GRANT the motion as follows.

The appeal will be submitted without oral argument on Wednesday, March 26, 2014.

We ABATE the appeal for thirty days to allow the parties to complete their settlement 

agreement. The appeal will be reinstated on April 25, 2014 or when a motion to dismiss is filed, 

whichever is earlier. If the parties do not file a motion to dismiss by April 25, 2014, the appeal 

will proceed to disposition on the parties’ briefs.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  | • | the                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                  and |
|--|---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | • | the                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of                  the                  Partnership. |
|--|---------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                 |   |   |                                                           |
|----------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 13, 2008 |   |   | /s/ JOHN B. WALKER                                             |
|                      |   |   | John                  B. Walker                                |
|                 |   |   | Chief Executive Officer of EV Management                  LLC, |
|                 |   |   | general partner of EV Energy GP,                  L.P.,        |
|                 |   |   | general partner of EV Energy Partners,                  L.P.   |
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 13

- 00037

- CR

Guy SHEPPARD

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 0205

- CR

Honorable Gary L. Steel, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARIO N, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED June 11, 2014.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
#### BLOCKER v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG et al.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Aug. 3, 1936.

Charles J. Schuh, of St. Petersburg, for appellant.';

Carroll R. -Runyon, of St. Petersburg1, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal herein is from a decree dismissing a -bill of complaint seeking to enjoin the i^sue of $110,000 of hospital rev-; enue certificates by. the city of St. Peters-burg, Fla., without an approving vote of the freeholder electors of the city, as required by section 6, article 9, Constitution, as amended in 1930; the purpose of the issue being for improvements and additions to the. existing municipal hospital of the city of St. Petersburg.-

The hospital revenue certificates are to be paid solely from revenue derived from the operation of the said municipal hospital, and not otherwise.

The decree dismissing the bill of complaint should be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6, and other like cases. See Boykin v. Town of River Junction (Fla.) 169 So. 492; Roach v. City of Tampa (Fla.) 169 So. 627; State ex rel. Vero Beach v. MacConnell, No. 1 (Fla.) 169 So. 628; Williams v. Town of Dunnellon (Fla.) 169 So. 631; Bradley v. City of Homestead (Fla.) 169 So. 639; and other like cases decided at this term.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

ELLIS, P. J.,

concurs upon the principle announced in his specially concurring opinion in the case of State ex rel. City of Vero Beach v. MacConnell (Fla.) 169 So. 628, this day filed.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1219

To provide for a study to determine the costs to the public and private

sectors of hip fractures among elderly individuals and spinal cord injuries

among children, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mr. BACA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Energy and Commerce

A BILL

To provide for a study to determine the costs to the public

and private sectors of hip fractures among elderly individuals and spinal cord injuries among children, and

for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. STUDY REGARDING COSTS TO PUBLIC AND PRI4 VATE SECTORS OF HIP FRACTURES AMONG

5 ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS AND SPINAL CORD

6 INJURIES AMONG CHILDREN.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the National In8 stitutes of Health and the Comptroller General of the
2

•HR 1219 IH

1 United States shall collaborate to conduct a study for the

2 purpose of—

3 (1) determining (for the most recent one-year

4 period for which data are available) the costs to the

5 public and private sectors of hip fractures among el6 derly individuals and spinal cord injuries among chil7 dren; and

8 (2) making recommendations to reduce the inci9 dence of such fractures and injuries.

10 (b) CONSULTATIONS.—In conducting the study under

11 subsection (a), the officials referred to in such subsection

12 shall consult with an appropriate number and variety of

13 public and private entities, including States, providers of

14 health insurance and health plans, and patients.

15 (c) DATE CERTAIN FOR REPORT.—Not later than

16 January 10, 2003, the officials referred to in subsection

17 (a) shall complete the study under such subsection and

18 submit to the Congress a report describing the findings

19 and recommendations made pursuant to the study.

20 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—For the

21 purpose of carrying out this section, there are authorized

22 to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for

23 each of the fiscal years 2002 and 2003.

Æ
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUISA DELEON-GRAMAJO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72778

Agency No. A070-347-322

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMTIH, Circuit Judges. 

Luisa Deleon-Gramajo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reopen deportation

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

FILED

SEP 29 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72778

discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo questions of law and

claims of due process violations. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92

(9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Deleon-Gramajo’s

motion as untimely because it was filed almost 17 years after the final

administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Deleon-Gramajo failed to

establish she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing

deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling is

available to a petitioner who is prevented from filing due to deception, fraud or

error, and exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances); cf.

Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007) (due diligence

established where petitioner demonstrates “steadfast pursuit” of her case). We

therefore do not reach Deleon-Gramajo’s contentions related to her former

counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance.

The IJ properly determined that Deleon-Gramajo abandoned her application

for asylum because it was not filed by the IJ’s August 18, 1990, deadline. See 8

C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) (IJ may set filing deadlines and deem waived an application

not filed by the deadline). It follows therefore that Deleon-Gramajo’s due process
3 08-72778

rights were not violated. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Nursing Research Initial Review Group.                    

*Date:*                         October 16-17, 2008.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact:*                         Weiqun Li, MD, Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Ste. 710, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-5966,                         *wli@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 29, 2008.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-20643 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Harvey Pratt

v. No. 05-fp-395

NH Department of Safety,

Commissioner, et al.

O R D E R

On November 4, 2005 plaintiff requested of the prison a six

month certificate of custodial institution. It has not yet been

received but a $40.00 initial payment fee has been received from

plaintiff’s inmate account. Plaintiff is granted in forma

pauperis status and the file may be opened. However, this status

will be reconsidered if the certificate of custodial institution

is not received by January 7, 2006. 

This case has been assigned civil number 05-cv-395-JD. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 29, 2005

cc: Harvey Pratt, pro se

 NH State Prison Inmate Accounts

 Bonnie Reed, Financial Administrator

Case 1:05-cv-00395-PB Document 4 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 15.1**The TrusteeArchstone-Smith Operating Trust:Re: Registration Statement No. 333-133285 (Form S-3)     With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the usetherein of our report dated May 9, 2007 related to our review of interim financial information.     Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considereda part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accountingfirm, or a report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within themeaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act./s/ KPMG LLPDenver, Colorado
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 04-cr-175-01-SM

Corina Barcus

O R D E R

On November 7, 2008, defendant appeared for a “probable

cause” hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on five alleged

violations of conditions of supervision. She waived her right to

a preliminary hearing. I therefore find probable cause to hold

her for a revocation hearing. 

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). 

Under Rule 32.1(a)(6) defendant bears the burden of establishing

by clear and convincing evidence that she will not flee and that

she poses no danger to any other person or to the community.

Given the many opportunities given to her and the number of drugrelated violations, I find she is a danger to herself and the

community and is not likely to abide by any set of conditions. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending the revocation hearing. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or her designated representative for confinement in a

Case 1:04-cr-00175-SM Document 53 Filed 11/07/08 Page 1 of 2
2

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: November 7, 2008

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

 Robert J. Veiga, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:04-cr-00175-SM Document 53 Filed 11/07/08 Page 2 of 2
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1253

To amend the Shipping Act of 1984 to restore the application of the antitrust

laws to certain agreements and conduct to which such Act applies.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. HYDE, and Mr. HUTCHINSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend the Shipping Act of 1984 to restore the application of the antitrust laws to certain agreements and

conduct to which such Act applies.

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 ‘‘Free Market Antitrust

5 Immunity Reform (FAIR) Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

7 Section 7(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C.

8 App. 1706(a)) is amended—
2

•HR 1253 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1)—

2 (A) by inserting ‘‘entered into only among

3 marine terminal operators with respect to an

4 activity described in section 4(b)’’ after ‘‘agree5 ment’’,

6 (B) by striking ‘‘section 5(d) or’’, and

7 (C) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end,

8 (2) in paragraph (2)—

9 (A) by striking ‘‘or agreement’’ and insert10 ing ‘‘, assessment agreement, or agreement of

11 the kind described in paragraph (1) that is’’,

12 and

13 (B) by striking the semicolon at the end

14 and inserting a period, and

15 (3) by striking paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and

16 (6).

17 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

18 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub19 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this

20 Act shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment

21 of this Act.

22 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend23 ments made by this Act shall not apply with respect to

24 conduct occurring before the effective date of this Act.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 6954]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2114]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL00-95-204, EL00-98-189]


San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and 
Ancillary Services; Investigation of Practices of the California 
Independent System Operator and the California Power Exchange; Notice 
of Filing

January 30, 2008.
    Take notice that on January 29, 2008, Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc. 
and the California Parties filed a joint compliance filing in response 
to the Commission's January 4, 2008 Order.
    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. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ccac9decfc3e2e0e5e2e9dff9fcfce3fef8cceae9feefa2ebe3fa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d1979483929ebfbdb8bfb482a4a1a1bea3a591b7b4a3b2ffb6bea7">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on February 19, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-2114 Filed 2-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>