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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                      10,997,266
<SECURITIES>                                 5,239,625
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,484,120
<ALLOWANCES>                                   341,951
<INVENTORY>                                    105,683
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,469,984
<PP&E>                                       3,011,695
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,860,440)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,731,636
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,479,258
<BONDS>                                        178,076
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,346
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,648,524
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,731,636
<SALES>                                      9,416,634
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,608,827
<CGS>                                          603,059
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,271,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,680,383
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,916,502)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,331,561)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,584,941)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,584,941)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. 06-cr-71-01-02-SM

Elaine Brown and

Edward Brown

ORDER

Re: Document No. 60, Motion for the Court to Produce Law and

Facts re: Order on [54] Motion to Dismiss 

Ruling: Denied. The referenced motion to dismiss was facially

without merit and failed to meet even the minimal legal standard.

In criminal cases a defendant may move to dismiss an indictment on

grounds of "substantial failure" to comply with the Jury Selection

Act’s requirements for selecting the grand jury (28 U.S.C.

§§ 1867(a)). The procedures described in Section 1867 are the

"exclusive means" by which a person accused of a Federal crime may

challenge any jury on grounds that it was not selected in

conformity with the Jury Selection Act. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1867(e). The

motion filed by defendants did not comply with the procedures

described - no assertion or description of a "substantial failure"

was made, and, no "sworn statement of facts which, if true, would

constitute a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of

[the Act] " was filed in support of the motion. 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1867(d). Moreover, no factual issue was presented or resolved.

Fed. R. Cr. P. 12(d) provides, in pertinent part, "When factual

issues are involved in deciding a motion, the court must state its

essential findings on the record." Defendants did not raise a

factual issue regarding grand jury selection evincing a

"substantial failure" to comply with the statutory selection

requirements. Finally, the docket discloses that the Magistrate

Judge recently ruled on grand jury related discovery requests that

provide defendants with pertinent information they seek. They are,

of course, free to file a challenge to the grand jury selection

procedures based on that information, but must comply with 28

U.S.C. §§ 1867 (i.e. describe the alleged "substantial failure" and

file supporting sworn statements of facts which, if true, would

constitute a substantial failure to comply). 

 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: November 3, 2006

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 71 Filed 11/03/06 Page 1 of 2
cc: Elaine A. Brown, pro se

Edward L. Brown, pro se

William E. Morse, AUSA

Case 1:06-cr-00071-SM Document 71 Filed 11/03/06 Page 2 of 2
#### Scott M. LOFTIN and John W. Martin, as Trustees of Florida East Coast Railway Company, a Railroad Corporation Organized and Operating under the Laws of the State of Florida, Appellants, v. Gertrude COOMBS, a Widow, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Oct. 19, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


         ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


Linens 'n Things, Inc.
Clifton, New Jersey

Board of Directors:

Re: Registration Statements Numbers 333-116719, 333-116720, 333-71903,
333-42874, 333-55803, 333-62982 and 333-62984 on Form S-8

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated November 10, 2005 related to
our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm or a report prepared or certified
by an Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm within the meaning of
sections 7 and 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.



/s/ KPMG LLP
------------

KPMG LLP

New York, New York
November 10, 2005


                                       22
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00345

- CV

Season Jennifer Weeter

v.

NAPA Ventures Woodbridge, LLC

d/b/a Woodbridge Townhomes §

§

§

§ From County Court at Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2017

- 004166

- 1)

August 16, 2018

Opinion by Justice Ke rr



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the case should be dismissed as moot

. It is ordered that the trial court’s judgment

is vacated and that the case is dismissed as moot.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APP EALS

By

_ /s/ Elizabeth Kerr

__________________ Justice Elizabeth Kerr
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-19-01-JD

Bridget Hebert 

O R D E R

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

23) 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. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

_______________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: July 29, 2008

cc: Stanley W. Norkunas, Esq.

 Robert J. Veiga, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:07-cr-00019-JD Document 25 Filed 07/29/08 Page 1 of 1
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 158

To provide for the retention of the name of Mount McKinley.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 3, 2001

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

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To provide for the retention of the name of Mount McKinley.

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

3 That, notwithstanding any other authority of law, the

4 mountain located 63 degrees 04 minutes 12 seconds north,

5 by 151 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds west shall continue

6 to be named and referred to for all purposes as Mount

7 McKinley.

Æ
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jessie Rodriguez BARRON, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50181.

D.C. No. CR-94-00559-DMT-01.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 3, 2003.

Decided March 12, 2003.

Before LAY,* HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM**

Appellant Jessie Barron (“Barron”) waived the right to challenge the admissibility of his prior conviction by introducing the conviction on direct examination. *Ohler v. United States,*529 U.S. 753, 760, 120 S.Ct. 1851, 146 L.Ed.2d 826 (2000) (“a defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination may not on appeal claim that the admission of such evidence was error”).

Moreover, even if Barron did not waive the issue and we were to assume that the district court erred by permitting the gov-*346eminent to cross-examine Barron about the conviction, any error was undoubtedly harmless. The focus on the prior conviction was minimal, and the government made no reference to it in closing argument. *See United States v. HernandezMiranda,*601 F.2d 1104, 1109 n. 10 (9th Cir.1979) (“The extent to which the Government relies upon the inadmissible prior offense evidence is a factor which can be considered in deciding whether reversible error resulted.”).

The money laundering jury instruction, read as a whole, did not conflict with the indictment or relieve the prosecution of its burden of establishing that the proceeds were derived from the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Barron’s motion for a mistrial as a result of juror misconduct. The judge questioned each juror about the improper discussions and concluded that the incident did not rise to the level of misconduct that would warrant a mistrial. The trial judge is in the best position to determine whether the misconduct was prejudicial, *United States v. Klee,*494 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir.1974), and nothing in the record compels reversal of the district court’s ruling.

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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER 

NOS. CAAP-17-0000451 AND CAAP-19-0000664

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

CAAP-17-0000451

NICOLETA JACOBY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BENNETT JACOBY, Defendant-Appellant,

AND

CAAP-19-0000664

NICOLETA JACOBY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BENNETT JACOBY, Defendant-Appellant,

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

(FC-D No. 08-1-281K)

ORDER OF CORRECTION

(By: Nakasone, J., for the court1)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Summary Disposition Order

entered on April 20, 2021 (docket no. 89) in CAAP-17-0000451 and

(docket no. 75) in CAAP-19-0000664 is hereby corrected as

follows:

1. On pages 1 - 14, a header should be inserted at

the top of each page so that as corrected, the text reads: "NOT

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER".

1 Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Nakasone, JJ.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000451

21-APR-2021

07:58 AM

Dkt. 91 OCOR
 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER 

The clerk of the Court is directed to take all

necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of these

changes.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 21, 2021.

FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge
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 Eagle Broadband, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending February 29, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
Weisman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  May 3, 2004

/S/David A. Weisman
David A. Weisman,
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Melissa Rex

v.

U.S. Social Security Administration,

Commissioner

No. 07-fp-048

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee.

This case has been assigned civil number 07-cv- 048-SM .

SO ORDERED.

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 23, 2007

cc: Francis M. Jackson, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00048-SM Document 4 Filed 02/23/07 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

CEO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Ronald J. Buschur, Chief Executive Officer of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2006 (the Report) 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 780(d)); and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 12, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ RONALD J. BUSCHUR
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Ronald J. Buschur                    
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mark R. Mandevill e

v. Civil No. 05-cv-92-JD

Merrimack Count~Department of Corrections, Suuperintendent, et at .

ORDER

On July 25, 2006, Attorney John Curran provided the court, in camera, the last known

addresses of defendants Steven Mayo and Don Andrade . Service was again attempted by the United

States Marshal using these addresses . Service as to Steven Mayo has once again been returned

unexecuted .

Plaintiff Mandeville is advised that without a correct address the United States Marshal

cannot make service upon this named defendant. Unless Plaintiff provides the Court with a current

address for Steven Mayo within twenty (20) days from the date of this order, the court will otherwise

be required to dismiss this defendant without prejudice .

SO ORDERED.

September 26, 2006

cc: Michael Sheehan, Esq.

John Curran, Esq.

W. Kirk Abbott, Jr., Esq.

Charles Bauer, Esq .

Lisa Lee, Esq .

Ralph Suozzo, Esq .

/s/ James R. Muirhead

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00092-JD Document 51 Filed 09/26/06 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20810]


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

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

11 CFR Parts 100 and 104

[Notice 2008-09]


Reporting Contributions Bundled by Lobbyists, Registrants and the 
PACs of Lobbyists and Registrants

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Election Commission is announcing a public hearing 
on the proposed rules governing the disclosure of information about 
bundled contributions provided by certain lobbyists, registrants and 
their PACs.

DATES: The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 and 
will begin at 9:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Commission hearings are held in the Commission's ninth floor 
meeting room, 999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy L. Rothstein, Assistant 
General Counsel, or Ms. Cheryl A.F. Hemsley, Attorney, 999 E Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694-1650 or (800) 424-9530.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 6, 2007, the Commission 
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') proposing rules 
governing the disclosure of information about bundled contributions 
provided by certain lobbyists, registrants and their PACs. Reporting 
Contributions Bundled by Lobbyists, Registrants and the PACs of 
Lobbyists and Registrants, 72 FR 62,600 (Nov. 6, 2007). The deadline 
for comments on the NPRM was Nov. 30, 2007. In the NPRM, the Commission 
stated that it would announce the date of a hearing at a later date.
    Accordingly, the hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 
2008 (see DATES and ADDRESSES, above). Witnesses will be limited to 
those individuals who indicated in their timely comments on the NPRM 
that they wished to testify at the hearing. Individuals who plan to 
attend and require special assistance, such as sign language 
interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Mary 
Dove, Commission Secretary, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior 
to the hearing date.

    Dated: September 2, 2008.

    On behalf of the Commission.
Ellen Weintraub,
Commissioner, Federal Election Commission.
[FR Doc. E8-20810 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
41

C.7. Local Trends in Farm Income and Expenditures as Reported by Banks in Each RegionPercent

Farm income Farm household spending Farm capital sp

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same 

Ninth (Minneapolis) Federal Reserve District (MI*, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI*)

2003: Q1... 52 27 20 30 52 18 53 3

 Q2... 28 50 22 19 65 16 34 5 Q3... 28 47 25 17 70 13 31 6 Q4... 8 33 59 6 61 33 16 52004: Q1... 7 25 68 5 52 43 8 4 Q2... 2 37 61 2 55 42 5 4 Q3... 15 47 38 5 63 33 10 5 Q4... 20 30 50 5 56 40 11 42005: Q1... 17 34 48 5 53 42 16 3

Tenth (Kansas City) Federal Reserve District (CO, KS, MO*, NE, NM*, OK, WY)

2003: Q1... 72 24 5 44 48 8 68 3

 Q2... 36 47 17 27 60 13 46 4 Q3... 22 46 32 18 68 15 36 4 Q4... 17 35 48 10 64 25 20 52004: Q1... 11 42 47 8 68 25 16 5 Q2... 11 49 40 9 65 26 15 6 Q3... 11 51 38 6 71 23 12 6 Q4... 10 40 50 5 60 35 9 52005: Q1... 12 48 40 5 59 36 12 5

Twelfth (San Francisco) Federal Reserve District (AL, AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, UT, WA)

2003: Q1... 57 22 22 52 30 17 52 3

 Q2... 50 35 15 46 46 8 58 2 Q3... 46 38 17 33 63 4 46 4 Q4... 30 22 48 17 70 13 26 32004: Q1... 18 55 27 14 73 14 27 5 Q2... 13 43 43 0 70 30 22 4 Q3... 5 36 59 0 73 27 9 4 Q4... 17 30 52 13 57 30 13 42005: Q1... 27 55 18 14 68 18 23 5 * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. n.a. Not available. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dennis A. Smith

v. Civil No. 07-cv-119-SM

NH Department of Corrections,

Commissioner, et al.

ORDER

Re: Document No. 77, Motion for Hearing.

Ruling: Denied. A hearing is unnecessary. The court can

not provide resources of the government which have not been made

available to it by Congress, nor can it compel defendant to

provide those resources. Congress has sought to discourage

prisoner cases by making them difficult. This court is powerless

to do anything about it with the exception of providing more time

to plaintiff if he moves for it. Otherwise, plaintiff is on his

own in lining up an expert.

James R. Muirhead

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Date: May 2, 2008

cc: Dennis A. Smith, pro se

 Danielle Leah Pacik, Esq.

 

 

Case 1:07-cv-00119-SM Document 79 Filed 05/02/08 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charlie Vega, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 869]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered May 20, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its resolution of inconsistencies in the detectives’ testimony *(see People v Gaimari,*176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.