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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Covance
consolidated financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 1998 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001023131
<NAME>                        Covance Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                         1
<CASH>                                         17,730,000
<SECURITIES>                                            0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                 152,832,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                    19,756,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              229,605,000
<PP&E>                                        203,155,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  7,884,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                484,873,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         170,423,000
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          578,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    167,915,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  484,873,000
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              168,509,000
<CGS>                                         112,729,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 148,195,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  113,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,695,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                18,506,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    7,860,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            10,452,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                   10,452,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0.18
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Pascual ESTRADA-GONZALEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10461.

D.C. No. CR-01-00437-RLH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 18, 2003.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Pascual Estrada-Gonzalez appeals the 57-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for unlawful reentry of deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Estrada-Gonzalez contends that under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the district court deprived him of due process by imposing a sentence greater than 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)’s two-year maximum based on his prior aggravated felony, where he did not admit to having committed a prior criminal offense which would qualify as a felony.

Estrada-Gonzalez states that he presents the issue merely to preserve it in the event of ensuing favorable Supreme Court precedent, and acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-181-01-SM

John Teves

O R D E R

Defendant Teves’ motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 50). Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2008

trial period. Defendant Teves shall file a waiver of speedy trial on or before

November 23, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: January 25, 2008 at 1:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: February 5, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00181-SM Document 51 Filed 11/09/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

November 9, 2007

cc: Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Joseph Laplante, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00181-SM Document 51 Filed 11/09/07 Page 2 of 2
188 La. 487

#### STATE v. SLAYDON et al.

No. 34596.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 29, 1937.

C. Sidney Frederick, of Covington, for appellants.

*583Gaston L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and James T. Burns, Dist. Atty., of Covington, for the State.

ROGERS, Justice.

Otha Slaydon and Sylvia Miller were indicted for having stolen goods in their possession. They were tried together, the jury returning the following verdict, viz.:

> “We the jury find the accused guilty as charged.”

After the verdict was announced, the jury was polled, and each juror declared that the . verdict as announced was his-verdict. Before sentence was passed, the defendants filed a motion in arrest of judgment. The motion was overruled, and the defendants were sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary- — Otha Slaydon for a period of not less than 8 months nor more than 24 months, and Sylvia Miller for a period of not less than 5 months nor more than 15 months. Defendants have appealed.

Defendants -complain that the indictment is fatally defective, because it does not charge them with both being present, aiding and assisting each other and acting together in the commission of the alleged crime, and, further, that the verdict is vague and uncertain, in that it does not name the defendants, or either of'them, and it is therefore impossible to determine whether the jury meant to convict both defendants, or only one of them, 'and, if so, which defendant. ,

There is no merit in defendants’ complaint that the indictment is fatally defective. Evidently realizing this, defendants’ counsel has not submitted any argument in support of the complaint.

Defendants were indicted and tried as principals and not as a principal and an accessory before the fact. Moreover, the distinction between principals and accessories before the fact was abolished by Act No. 120 of 1932.

Nor do we find any merit in defendants’ complaint relative to the verdict of the jury.

The word “accused” refers to any person who is charged with the commision of a criminal offense. Both Otha Slaydon and Sylvia Miller were charged with the offense laid in the indictment. They were the only persons charged with committing the offense and were the only persons tried for its commission. They were the “accused” both in the indictment and in the resulting trial. They were indicted together and tried together, and there could be no possible doubt as to whom the verdict referred. It was sufficiently definite and certain to identify both defendants as the parties against whom it was rendered. State v. Chambers, 45 La.Ann. 36, 11 So. 944; State v. Tolliver, 47 La.Ann. 1099, 17 So. 502. See, also, State v. Barber, 167 La. 635, 120 So. 33.

For the reasons assigned, the verdict sentence appealed from are affirmed.

HIGGINS, J., absent.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22126]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,278]


Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, Including On-Site Leased 
Workers from Pro Unlimited, Allenport, PA; Amended Notice of Revised 
Determination on Reconsideration

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Revised 
Determination on Reconsideration on August 11, 2008. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2008 (73 FR 48395).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration for workers of the 
subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of cold rolled 
sheet coils.
    New information shows that leased workers from Pro Unlimited were 
employed on-site at the Allenport, Pennsylvania location of Wheeling 
Pittsburgh Steel Corporation. The Department has determined that these 
workers were sufficiently under the control of Wheeling Pittsburgh 
Steel Corporation to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this revised 
determination to include workers leased from Pro Unlimited working on-
site at the Allenport, Pennsylvania location of the subject firm.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
adversely affected secondary workers employed at Wheeling Pittsburgh 
Steel Corporation, Allenport, Pennsylvania.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-63,278 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers of Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, 
including on-site leased workers from Pro Unlimited, Allenport, 
Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after April 21, 2007, through August 11, 2010, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative 
trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 
1974.''

    Signed at Washington, DC this 12th day of September 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-22126 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  XXII  Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form  10-Q
for  the  period  ended September 30, 2009,  as  filed  with  the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on  the  date  hereof  (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President  of  AEI
Fund  Management XXI, Inc., the Managing General Partner  of  the
Partnership, and Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI
Fund  Management XXI, Inc., each certify, pursuant to  18  U.S.C.
1350,  as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     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 Partnership.


                          /s/ ROBERT P JOHNSON
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 10, 2009



                          /s/ PATRICK W KEENE
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 10, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1460 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1460

To amend section 922 of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 
   protect the rights of citizens under the Second Amendment to the 
                   Constitution of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

  Mr. Hefley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 922 of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to 
   protect the rights of citizens under the Second Amendment to the 
                   Constitution of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Second Amendment Rights Protection 
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

    Subsection (t) of section 922 of chapter 44 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following 
new paragraph:
            ``(7) None of the funds appropriated pursuant to any 
        provision of law may be used for (1) any system to implement 
        this subsection that does not require and result in the 
        immediate destruction of all information, in any form 
        whatsoever, submitted by or on behalf of any person who has 
        been determined not to be prohibited from owning a firearm; (2) 
        the implementation or collection of any tax or fee by any 
        officer, agent, or employee of the United States, or by any 
        state or local officer or agent acting on behalf of the United 
        States, in connection with the implementation of this 
        subsection; provided, that any person aggrieved by a violation 
        of this provision may bring an action in the Federal district 
        court for the district in which the person resides; provided 
        further, that any person who is successful with respect to any 
        such action shall receive damages, punitive damages, and such 
        other remedies as the court may determine to be appropriate, 
        including a reasonable attorney's fee.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin D. Larrabee

v. Case No. 06-cv-294-SM

Judson P. Stockton

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated December 6, 2006, no objection having been filed, for the reasons

set forth therein. Plaintiff’s complaint is hereby dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

January 3 , 2007 ____________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge 

cc: Kevin D. Larrabee, pro se 

Case 1:06-cv-00294-SM Document 7 Filed 01/03/07 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JERRY W. LACKEY,

Defendant.

4:23CR3064

ORDER

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed 

by the above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. 

After a review of the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is 

eligible for appointment of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 

U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of 

Nebraska.

IT IS ORDERED:

The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska is appointed to 

represent the above named defendant in this matter. In the event that the 

Federal Public Defender accepts this appointment, the Federal Public Defender 

shall forthwith file an appearance in this matter. In the event the Federal Public 

Defender should decline this appointment for reason of conflict or on the basis of 

the Criminal Justice Act Plan, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith provide 

the court with a draft appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the name and 

other identifying information of the CJA Panel attorney identified in accordance 

with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for this district.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this 

order to the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska.

DATED this 19th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Cheryl R. Zwart

United States Magistrate Judge

4:23-cr-03064-JMG-CRZ Doc # 11 Filed: 05/19/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 19
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Appendix A to item 601(c) of Regulation S-K
Commercial and Industrial Companies
Article 5 of Regulation S-X
(in Thousands except per share data)
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                           3,148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,776
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    208,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               233,364
<PP&E>                                         144,211
<DEPRECIATION>                                  44,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 405,479
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          124,229
<BONDS>                                         10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           193
<OTHER-SE>                                     254,388
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   405,479
<SALES>                                        365,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               365,634
<CGS>                                          224,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 945
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,314
<INCOME-TAX>                                       972
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,342
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,342
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

FERNANDO AGUIRRE-QUINTERO,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 8:23CR106

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [24]. 

Counsel needs additional time to negotiate a resolution short of trial. For good cause 

shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial [24] is granted, as 

follows:

1. The jury trial now set for August 28, 2023, is continued to November 27, 

2023.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests 

of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising 

as a result of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s 

date and November 27, 2023, shall be deemed excludable time in any 

computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to 

grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for 

effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

DATED: August 24, 2023.

 BY THE COURT:

s/ Susan M. Bazis

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00106-RFR-SMB Doc # 25 Filed: 08/24/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 40
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1238

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the

work opportunity credit and to allow the credit for employment of certain

older individuals.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 27, 2001

Mr. HOUGHTON (for himself and Mr. RANGEL) 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 permanently

extend the work opportunity credit and to allow the

credit for employment of certain older individuals.

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 ‘‘Work Opportunity Im5 provement Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF WORK OPPORTUNITY

7 CREDIT; CREDIT ALLOWED FOR EMPLOYING

8 CERTAIN OLDER INDIVIDUALS.

9 (a) CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.—
2

•HR 1238 IH

1 (1) Subsection (c) of section 51 of the Internal

2 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking para3 graph (4) (relating to termination).

4 (2) Section 51A of such Code is amended by

5 striking subsection (f).

6 (b) INCREASE IN AGE LIMIT FOR FOOD STAMP RE7 CIPIENTS.—Clause (i) of section 51(d)(8)(A) of such Code

8 (relating to food stamp recipients) is amended by striking

9 ‘‘25’’ and inserting ‘‘51’’.

10 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

11 this section shall apply to individuals who begin work for

12 the employer after December 31, 2001.

Æ
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

ALEXANDRU HOTEA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant.

8:23CV223

ORDER ON JOINT STIPULATION FOR 

DISMISSAL

This case is before the Court on the Joint Stipulation for Dismissal, signed by both parties. 

Filing 25. The parties stipulate to dismissal of this action with prejudice, without costs or 

disbursements to any of the parties. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Stipulation for Dismissal, Filing 25, is granted. 

This case is dismissed with prejudice, without costs or disbursements to any of the parties.

Dated this 7th day of February, 2024.

BY THE COURT:  

_________________________

Brian C. Buescher 

United States District Judge

8:23-cv-00223-BCB-MDN Doc # 26 Filed: 02/07/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 198
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v.

Stephen M. Butler

Criminal No. 06-cr-47-01-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

26) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: May 11, 2007

cc: Harry Batchelder, Jr., Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00047-JD Document 27 Filed 05/11/07 Page 1 of 1