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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         114,586
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                       220
<INVENTORY>                                      3,429
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               120,251
<PP&E>                                          20,429
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,583
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,400
<BONDS>                                          7,949
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    158,781
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,776
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   137,125
<SALES>                                          3,312
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,312
<CGS>                                           13,937
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,818
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   212
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 825
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (43,765)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (43,765)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (43,765)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (13.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (13.16)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1737 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1737

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a waiver 
 of the 35-mile drive requirement for designations of critical access 
                               hospitals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 28, 2007

 Mr. Sessions introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a waiver 
 of the 35-mile drive requirement for designations of critical access 
                               hospitals.

    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 ``Critical Access Hospital Flexibility 
Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. WAIVER OF 35-MILE DRIVE REQUIREMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 1820(c) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395i-4(c)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)(B)(i), by striking ``is a hospital'' 
        and inserting ``subject to paragraph (3), is a hospital''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) Waiver of certain requirements.--The Secretary may 
        waive the requirements under subclauses (I) and (II) of 
        paragraph (2)(B)(i) for designation of a critical access 
        hospital by a State in any case where the Secretary determines 
        such waiver is appropriate.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to cost reporting periods beginning on or after the date of 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Front Porch Digital
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Michael
Knaisch, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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) 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 14, 2004                                By: /s/ Michael Knaisch
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Michael Knaisch
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

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

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
OIRNEY OF TEXAS

HonorableRobert S. Calvert Comptroller of PublicAccounts Capitol Station Austin, Texas Opinion, NO, W-369 Re: Authorityof the Comptroller to issuewarrant in payment of traveling expenses to a District Judge under Article 1620, Vernon's Civil Statutes, Dear Mr. Calvert: upon the facts submitted,

We have receivedyour letter of January 31, 1958, in which you request our opinl.on as to the,

propriety of Issuing a reimbursementwarrabt to a District Judge of a District composed of two or more counties to cover his travel expenses for a round trip to Austin, Texas, to confer with the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety to secure an officer towait upon the District Court of one of the counties In his District.

Authority for payment of thisDistrict Judge's travel expenses is contained in Article 6820, Vernon's $1~11 Statutes,but is limited to those expenses incurred

. .when engaged in the discharge of their official duties in any county in this State other than the county of their residence". (Emphasisours)

While public officers are, for some purposes, agents of the public and of the communitywhich they represent, their duties and authority are defined and limitedby law, and theyhave no general authority to bind the public. They possess only suchpowers as.~;are expressly conferred upon themby law, or which are necessarilyimplied therefrom. 34 Tex. Jur. 440, 441, Public Officers, Section 67.

Section 23, ArticleV, Constitutionof Texas, establishes the office of Sheriff in each county; and It Is well recognized that the Sheriff is available to wait upon theHonorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 2 (W-369)

District Court and to nerform its administrativeand ministerial functions. (Beicher,et al v. CassidyBrothers Livestock Commission Co., b2 S W 924,writ of error denied; Hartson, Sheriff, et al v. Lanieion, et al, 292 S.W. 648, writ of error refused; 38 Tex. Jur. 142 Sheriffs, Section 2). That the Legislature Intends the Sheriff to provide such service to the District Court Is made clearby Article 3988,Vernon's Civil Statutes, directingpayment to the Sheriff for such service.

Since your letter statesno factswhich would bring the actwithin the limits of authority of the District Judge, and, thereforeAwithin the meaning of "dischargeof their official duties as used in Article 6820,Vernon's Civil Statutes,we are of the opinion, andyou are so advised, that reimbursementfor expenses so incurred is not authorizedby such Article.

SUMMARY

Reimbursementof a District Judge's travel expenses incurred in a trip to Austin for thepurpose of securing an officer towait upon the Court Is not authorizedby Article 6820, Vernon's Civil Statutes, such trip not being in "dischargeof their.

Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 3 (W-369)

official duties"upon the facts submitted.

Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attorney General of Texas

Tom I. McFarling Assistant T1M:ws.m~ APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Geo. P.Blackburn, Chairman Cecil C. Rotsch J. Mark McLaughlin J. Milton Richardson John H. Minton, Jr. REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEYGENERAL BY: W. V. Geppert
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,512,411
<SECURITIES>                                32,289,823
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,542,911
<ALLOWANCES>                                   391,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,353,934
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,422,690
<PP&E>                                       9,329,179
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,381,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,105,282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,047,736
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    39,366,963
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,690,583
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,105,282
<SALES>                                     36,389,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            36,389,678
<CGS>                                       19,099,716
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,099,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                93,507
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,014
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,439,372
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,190,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,249,372
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,249,372
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .79
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .79
        

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

IMPLANTIS ORAL AND FACIAL )

SURGERY, P.A., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. )

) Case No. 2D18-1243

STONE THAYER, ) 

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed October 2, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Andrea McHugh, Judge.

Robin Bresky, Jonathan Mann and 

Jeremy Dicker of Law Offices of Robin 

Bresky, Boca Raton, for Appellant.

Brian D. Goodrich and David A. Wallace 

of Bentley & Bruning, P.A., Sarasota, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6971

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CURTIS BURSTON, JR., a/k/a Black, a/k/a David Smith, a/k/a 

Melvin Roberts, a/k/a David Brown,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:04-cr-00371-F-2)

Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curtis Burston, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Burston, Jr. seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2013) motion as successive and denying his motion to 

reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Burston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Burston’s notice of appeal 

and informal brief as an application to file a second or 
3

successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims 

based on either:

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 

that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2013). Burston’s claims do 

not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny 

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

HECTOR PERDOMO-CABRERA, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 19-1374 

(D.C. No. 1:18-CR-00192-RM-6) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before LUCERO, KELLY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________ 

Hector Perdomo-Cabrera pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute or possess 

with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing 

methamphetamine. He was sentenced to serve 108 months in prison. Although his 

plea agreement contained a waiver of his appellate rights, he filed a notice of appeal. 

The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver in the plea agreement 

pursuant to United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per 

curiam). 

 * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

January 23, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

Under Hahn, we consider “(1) whether the disputed appeal falls within the 

scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and 

voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would 

result in a miscarriage of justice.” Id. at 1325. The government asserts that all of the 

Hahn conditions have been satisfied because: (1) Mr. Perdomo-Cabrera’s appeal is 

within the scope of the appeal waiver; (2) he knowingly and voluntarily waived his 

appellate rights; and (3) enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of 

justice. In response to the government’s motion, Mr. Perdomo-Cabrera, through 

counsel, concedes his appeal waiver is enforceable under the standard set forth in 

Hahn. 

Based on this concession and our independent review of the record, we grant 

the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. This 

dismissal does not affect Mr. Perdomo-Cabrera’s right to pursue post-conviction 

relief on the grounds permitted in his plea agreement. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, D.C. 20549





_______________________________________





FORM 8-K





_______________________________________





CURRENT REPORT


Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)


of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934


Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported):  December 11, 2017





_______________________________________





Kforce Inc.


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)





_______________________________________





Florida000-2605859-3264661(State or other jurisdictionof incorporation)(CommissionFile Number)(IRS EmployerIdentification No.)





1001 East Palm Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33605


(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)





Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (813) 552-5000





N/A


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)





_______________________________________





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:





 ̈Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)





 ̈Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)





 ̈Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))





 ̈Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))








---







Item 8.01Other Events.


On December 11, 2017, the Firm entered into a corporate stock repurchase plan (the “Plan”), which allows the Firm to repurchase outstanding common stock under a share repurchase program authorized by the Firm’s Board of Directors. The Plan is in accordance with Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and effective on December 12, 2017. Purchases of common stock under the Plan are subject to certain price, market, volume and timing constraints specified in the Plan.








---







SIGNATURES





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





KFORCE INC.(Registrant)December 11, 2017By:/s/ DAVID M. KELLYDavid M. Kelly,Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)KFORCE INC.(Registrant)December 11, 2017By:/s/ JEFFREY B. HACKMANJeffrey B. Hackman,Senior Vice President, Finance & Accounting(Principal Accounting Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02455-PAB 

BRENDALEE JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

FINAL JUDGMENT

In accordance with the orders filed during the pendency of this case, and

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered.

Pursuant to the Order [Docket No. 17] of Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered on

February 24, 2014, it is

ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner that plaintiff was not disabled

is AFFIRMED. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is hereby entered in favor of the defendant

and against the plaintiff and that the case is dismissed. It is

Case 1:11-cv-02455-PAB Document 18 Filed 02/28/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
FURTHER ORDERED that defendant CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, is AWARDED her costs, to be taxed by the Clerk of

the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1

Dated at Denver, Colorado this 28th day of February, 2014

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

s/Kathy Preuitt-Parks

Kathy Preuitt-Parks

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02455-PAB Document 18 Filed 02/28/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT
		12

PRIMUS GUARANTY,
		LTD

RATIO OF EARNINGS
		TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND

PREFERRED
		DISTRIBUTIONS OF SUBSIDIARY

(In thousands, except
		ratios)



Year Ended December
				  31,2006
			 
			 2005
			 
			 2004
			 
			 2003
			 
			 2002Earnings
				  (loss):Net earnings
				  (loss)
			 
			 $
			 94,891
			 
			 $
			 4,083
			 
			 $
			 23,685
			 
			 $
			 78,471
			 
			 $
			 (3,069
			 )Provision
				  (benefit) for taxes
			 
			 
			 42
			 
			 
			 46
			 
			 
			 46
			 
			 
			 (172
			 )
			 
			 254Distributions
				  on preferred securities of subsidiary
			 
			 
			 5,683
			 
			 
			 3,865
			 
			 
			 2,138
			 
			 
			 1,854
			 
			 
			 Income (loss)
				  from continuing operations before taxes (b)
			 
			 
			 100,616
			 
			 
			 7,994
			 
			 
			 25,869
			 
			 
			 80,153
			 
			 
			 (2,815
			 )Add:Fixed
				  charges
			 
			 
			 16,698
			 
			 
			 6,589
			 
			 
			 3,033
			 
			 
			 1,854
			 
			 
			 Subtract:Distributions
				  on preferred securities of subsidiary
			 
			 
			 (5,683
			 )
			 
			 (3,865
			 )
			 
			 (2,138
			 )
			 
			 (1,854
			 )
			 
			 Adjusted
				  earnings (loss)
			 
			 $
			 111,631
			 
			 $
			 10,718
			 
			 $
			 26,764
			 
			 $
			 80,153
			 
			 $
			 (2,815
			 )Fixed
				  charges:Interest
				  expense
			 
			 
			 10,849
			 
			 
			 2,660
			 
			 
			 881
			 
			 
			 
			 
			 
			 Amortization
				  of capitalized debt issuance costs
			 
			 
			 166
			 
			 
			 64
			 
			 
			 14
			 
			 
			 
			 
			 
			 Distributions
				  on preferred securities of subsidiary
			 
			 
			 5,683
			 
			 
			 3,865
			 
			 
			 2,138
			 
			 
			 1,854
			 
			 
			 Total fixed
				  charges and preferred distributions
			 
			 $
			 16,698
			 
			 $
			 6,589
			 
			 $
			 3,033
			 
			 $
			 1,854
			 
			 $
			 Ratio of
				  earnings to combined fixed charges and distributions on preferred securities of
				  subsidiary (a)
			 
			 
			 6.69
			 
			 
			 1.63
			 
			 
			 8.82
			 
			 
			 43.23
			 
			 
			 0.00


(a)
			 In 2002, the
				  ratio was not applicable as no fixed charges were incurred in such
				  years.


(b)
			 Income (loss)
				  from continuing operations before taxes represents income (loss) before income
				  taxes plus adding back distributions on preferred securities of
				  subsidiary
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the
use of our reports dated October 20, 2000, in the Registration Statement (Form
S-1 No. 333-00000) and related Prospectus of Chorum Technologies Inc. for the
registration of shares of its common stock.



                                       /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
October 27, 2000