alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Nos. 23273-1-II; 23714-8-II.

Division Two.

March 24, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael Pope, *Appellant.*The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Monte Robin Kaija, Jr., *Appellant.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Lewis County, Nos. 97-1-00215-4 and 97-1-00773-3, Richard L. Brosey, J., entered January 8 and August 31,1998. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, J., concurred in by Seinfeld, J., and Tollefson, J. Pro Tern. Now published at 100 Wn. App. 624.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements of American Business Financial Services, Inc.
and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1999 and the three months then ended and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      24,378,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               54,115,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   833,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           171,685,000
<PP&E>                                      20,693,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,155,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             429,939,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      216,560,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,873,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               429,939,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            27,820,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,503,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               141,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           7,646,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,317,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,527,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,790,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,790,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.03


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               6,398
<SECURITIES>                                        15,064
<RECEIVABLES>                                        3,217
<ALLOWANCES>                                          (740)
<INVENTORY>                                          6,101
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    32,682
<PP&E>                                               6,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (3,137)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      35,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                2,226
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                55
<OTHER-SE>                                          33,483
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        35,764
<SALES>                                              7,013
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     7,013
<CGS>                                                3,739
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        3,739
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     5,138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (1,319)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           343
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (976)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (976)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.18)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       WATER CROSSES STATE LINES

  (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed yesterday that the 
substitute for the Clean Water Act was not passed on the House floor, 
but I think that during the course of the debate one very important 
fact was brought out.
  Several speakers said and pointed out that the problem with clean 
water, or the problem with water in general, is that it follows, it 
crosses State lines. In other words, when we are dealing with the 
various amendments to the Clean Water Act today, we have to keep in 
mind that each State cannot be responsible totally for the water within 
its jurisdiction, because it has an impact on other States. That is why 
I think it was very important yesterday that we were able to pass the 
amendment on coastal nonpoint source pollution, because it means that 
one State will not be able to have a lesser standard or a lesser 
management program than another State and negatively impact that State.
  The same philosophy has to go before us today when we are dealing 
with the other amendments, whether it is ocean discharge and waivers 
for secondary treatment, or it is beach water testing. All these things 
should be voted on and looked at in the context of the fact that water 
crosses State lines. Whatever one State does is going to have an impact 
on another State.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                              
<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>                        
    This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  audited  financial  statements for the nine months ended December
31,  1996 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>                       
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
                                    
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                  2,419
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                              20
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        6,295
<PP&E>                                 95,756
<DEPRECIATION>                         27,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         74,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  92,750
<BONDS>                                 9,125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                           (30,302)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           74,968
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        8,182
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           5,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           92
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      3,528
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (1,349)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (1,349)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          (1,349)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (30.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (30.81)
        

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

AMOS O. DARE,

Appellant,

v.

MARIA A. MARCHETTI,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D19-3734 and 4D19-3889

[October 29, 2020]

Consolidated appeals of nonfinal orders from the Circuit Court for the 

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Sarah Willis, Judge; L.T. 

Case No. 502017DR002716XXXXMB.

Amy D. Shield and Roger Levine of Shield & Levine, P.A., Boca Raton, 

for appellant.

Eddie Stephens, Caryn A. Stevens and Gina M. Szapucki of Ward, 

Damon, Posner, Pheterson & Bleau, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J. GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

134902 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. TERI LYNN GALLANT, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices v SC: 134902 COA: 265396 Jackson CC: 03-002034-DM JON ANDREW GALLANT, JR., Defendant-Appellant, and

GALLANT TRANSPOR T, INC., and JON ANDREW GALLANT, SR., Defendant/Intervenor-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 21, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

t0317 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
News United States Air Force
 Beginning Nov. 11, ‘After Basic' social show offers live reaction, analysis to BMT docuseriesPublished Nov. 10, 2021
                        
                        
                        Air Education and Training Command Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                A live social media 'after' show focused on reflecting on and discussing the Air Force Recruiting Service’s new docuseries ‘Basic’ is set to debut on the **Air Education and Training Command** Facebook page Thursday, Nov. 11, at 7:45 p.m. Central Standard Time.
‘After Basic’ will air each Thursday at 7:45 p.m. after the 'Basic' episode release each week and feature guests from the docuseries and subject matter experts to offer additional insight and information on the events from each episode. During the show, viewers and fans are encouraged to interact with the hosts, Dan Hawkins and Master Sgt. Caitlin Jones-Martin, in the comment section on the **AETC Facebook page**.
“Basic” presents the unique perspective of five enlistees from various parts of the country as they navigate the ups and downs of BMT beginning in October, 2019. The show debuted in late October on the **U.S. Air Force Recruiting Service YouTube page**.
“From a recruiter’s first meeting with a future Airman or Guardian, their initial questions always seems to be about what they can expect at BMT,” said **Maj. Gen. Ed Thomas**, AFRS commander. “Today's BMT isn't what mom or dad went through decades ago and it’s not necessarily what Hollywood portrays.”
With the exception of Nov. 25, 2021, eight weekly episodes of ‘Basic’ will run Thursdays continuing through Dec. 23 at 7 p.m. CST. Run time for each episode is between 37 and 43 minutes.
The first episode is tentatively set to feature one of the visionaries of the show, Chief Master Sgt. Lee Hoover, as well as an Air Force recruiter and a military training instructor from the show.
Catch up on Chapter 1: First Impressions and Chapter Two: Shock and Awe on AFRS **YouTube** now before tuning in Thursday at 7 p.m. for the debut of Chapter Three: Chow Runners Go.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



basic 



BMT 



docuseries 



AFRS 



Air Force Recruiting Service 



37th TW 



Gateway Wing 



JBSA 



Lackland 



training 



After Basic 



live reaction 



Air Education and Training Command Related Links
        ‘Basic’ docuseries goes behind the scenes at USAF BMT beginning Oct. 28
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 56136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22955]



[[Page 56136]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW149954]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 
WYW149954, Wyoming

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 
amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a petition for 
reinstatement from Chesapeake Exploration LLC and Khody Land & Minerals 
Company for competitive oil and gas lease WYW149954 for land in 
Converse County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was 
accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease terminated 
under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. 
Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessees have agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre, or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessees have 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessees 
have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out 
in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the BLM is proposing to reinstate lease WYW149954 
effective April 1, 2010, under the original terms and conditions of the 
lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above. The BLM 
has not issued a valid lease to any other interest affecting the lands.

Julie L. Weaver,
Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 2010-22955 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-2675NE

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Juvenile B.E.L.V.D., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: December 15, 1998

Filed: December 28, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, HEANEY, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Juvenile B.E.L.V.D. appeals the district court's de cision transferring the juvenile for prosecution as an adult. Having reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, we conclu de that an extensive discussion is not warranted. Contrary to Juvenil e B.E. L.V.D.'s view, the district court carefully considered the discretionary transfe r factors and correctly held that it would be in the interests of justice to transfer th e juvenile for prosecution as an adult. Having considered Juvenile B.E.L.V.D.' s arguments, we see no error by the district court. We thus affirm the judgment of the district court without further discussion. See8th Cir. R. 47B. Additionally, if Juvenile B.E.L.V. D. is prosecuted as an adult and convicted, we suggest the district court and-2-

the bureau of prisons con sider a placement in Chamberlain Academy in South Dakota or in a facility that offers programs similar to those offered at Chamberlain. WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, concurs in the result and concurs in the judgment. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 Nova  Communications,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report") the
undersigned  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

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

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


Date: November 17, 2005          NOVA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

                                 By: /s/ ARTHUR N. ROBINS
                                 --------------------------
                                 Arthur N. Robins
                                 Chief Executive Officer
Tom Green County

District Clerk

Sheri Woodfin

112 W Beauregard 325-659-6579

San Angelo TX 76903 Fax - 325-659-3241

 July 25, 2014

 

 Third Court of Appeals

 P.O. Box 12547

 Austin, Texas 78711-2547

Re: Court of Appeals Number: 03-14-00655-CR

 Trial Court Case Number: D-13-0958-SA

Style: Nathaniel J. Frazier, Jr.

 v. The State of Texas

Dear Mr. Kyle,

In reference to the letter dated January 12, 2015 from the Third Court of Appeals, it stated the Supplemental Clerk’s Record be 

submitted no later than Thursday, January 22, 2015. We are not able to submit the record at this time since we have not 

received the “Trial’s Court Certification of Defendant’s Right to Appeal” from the defendant’s Attorney Mr. Justin Mock. I have 

notified the Attorney in reference to this matter with another attachment of the Trial’s Court Certification. 

Very truly yours,

REBECCA P. DOUGLAS

Rebecca Douglas District

Deputy Clerk Court Service

Unit

112 West Beauregard San Angelo, Texas

76903 rebecca.douglas@co.tom.green.tx.us
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41425 Conference Calendar

NATHANIEL ARTHUR JETTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus HERBERT SCOTT ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CV-215

- - - - - - - - - - October 20, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Nathaniel Arthur Jetton, Texas prisoner # 684968, appeals from the judgment in favor of the defendants following a bench trial on Jetton’s civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argues that the judgment is in error. Jetton, however, has failed in his burden pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 10(b) of providing this court with a copy of the trial transcript. Accordingly, we cannot review the issue he raises on appeal. See United States v. Hinojosa , 958 F.2d 624, 632-33 (5th Cir. 1992). Jetton’s appeal is DISMISSED.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices 

# Order

May 29, 2009

138168 138179 138182

BRIGGS TAX SERVICE, L.L.C., Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 138168 COA: 278865 MTT: 00-319592 DETROIT PUBLIC SCHO OLS, and DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondents-Appellants, and

CITY OF DETROIT and WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, Respondents.

________________ _______________ __________/

BRIGGS TAX SERVICE, L.L.C., Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 138179 COA: 278865 MTT: 00-319592 DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION, and WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, Respondents, and

CITY OF DETROIT, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 29, 2009

0526 2

BRIGGS TAX SERVICE, L.L.C., Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 138182 COA: 278865 MTT: 00-319592 DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION, and CITY OF DETROIT, Respondents, and

WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, Respondent-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the December 23, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals are consid ered, and they are GRAN TED, limited to the issue of whether the petitioner’s dispute regard ing the collection of property taxes for tax years 2002, 2003, and 2004 involved a mutu al mistake of fact made by the assessing officer and the taxpayer such that the three-year limitation period of MCL 211.53a applies to the petitioner’s claims.

Persons or groups interested in the determination of the i ssue presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
News United States Air Force
 AF releases chief master sergeant 17E9 promotion cycle statisticsPublished Dec. 7, 2017
                        
                        By Kat Bailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force’s Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS)  --**
                The Air Force has selected 472 senior master sergeants for promotion to chief master sergeant out of 2,142 eligible for a selection rate of 22.04 percent in the 17E9 promotion cycle.  
The average overall score for those selected was 486.71. Selectees’ average time in grade was 2.98 years and time in service was 20.97 years. The average decorations score was 24.01 and the average U.S. Air Force Supervisory Exam score was 71.81. The average board score was 390.89. 
The chief master sergeant promotion list is available on the Air Force Portal and myPers. Airmen can also access their score notices on the virtual MPF via the secure applications page.
Those selected will be promoted according to their promotion sequence number beginning in January 2018. Prior to posting the list on myPers, the Air Force’s Personnel Center provided commanders, senior raters and trusted agents with advanced knowledge of their Airmen’s selection with the intention that selects be notified no earlier than one day before the public release.
For more information about Air Force personnel programs, visit myPers from a CAC-enabled computer. Eligible individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by following these instructions.Air Force 



AFPC 



promotion 



enlisted 



AETC 



AF 



Air Force Personnel Center 



Air Force Portal 



Air Education and Training Command 



chief master sergeant 



CMSGT 



SMSgt 



promotion cycle 



joint base 



eligible 



17E9 



senior master sergeants 



JB San Antonio-Randolph