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

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      12,840
<SECURITIES>                                6,541
<RECEIVABLES>                               7,766
<ALLOWANCES>                                (880)
<INVENTORY>                                 6,104
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            34,486
<PP&E>                                      5,990
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,669)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       6,030
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    53
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,807
<SALES>                                     17,689
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            17,689
<CGS>                                       8,171
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               8,171
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            5,603
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             4,298
<INCOME-TAX>                                1,461
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         2,837
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                2,837
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.50



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 5, 2014

s0825 

# Order

Clerk September 5, 2014

148735

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIG AN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148735

COA: 319582

Wayne CC: 88

- 014977

- FC

STEVEN ANTHONY HENDON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
News United States Air Force
 Senior leader announcement: Week of June 3Published June 3, 2021
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                Acting Secretary of the Air Force John P. Roth announces the following: ****General officer retirement:****Gen. Timothy M. RayFrom: Commander, Air Force Global Strike Command, Barksdale Air Force Base, LouisianaDAF 



Senior Leaders 



Air Force 



officer assignments 



USAF 



retirement
News United States Air Force
 SecAF selects Huntsville, Alabama as preferred location to host USSPACECOMPublished Jan. 13, 2021
                        
                        By   Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Secretary of the Air Force, on behalf of the Office of Secretary of Defense, selected**Redstone Arsenal**, Huntsville, Alabama, as the preferred location for the **U.S. Space Command** Headquarters.The Department of the Air Force conducted both virtual and on-site visits to assess which of six candidate locations would be best suited to host the U.S. Space Command Headquarters based on factors related to mission, infrastructure capacity, community support and costs to the Department of Defense.
Huntsville compared favorably across more of these factors than any other community, providing a large, qualified workforce, quality schools, superior infrastructure capacity, and low initial and recurring costs.Additionally, the Huntsville community, with Redstone Arsenal coordination, offered a facility to support the headquarters, at no cost, while the permanent facility is being constructed.Albuquerque, New Mexico; Bellevue, Nebraska; Cape Canaveral, Florida; Colorado Springs, Colorado; and San Antonio, Texas, will remain reasonable alternative locations for the U.S. Space Command Headquarters.
The preferred and reasonable alternative locations were chosen from amongst 24 states that were evaluated as potential locations for hosting the headquarters.
The Department of the Air Force anticipates making a final decision for the location of U.S. Space Command Headquarters in spring 2023, pending the results from the required environmental impact analysis.
Colorado Springs, Colorado, remains the provisional headquarters until the permanent location is ready to support the mission.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



USSPACECOM 



Huntsville 



Alabama 



basing location 



Redstone Arsenal 



headquarters 



SecAF 



U.S. Space Command
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 395

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 
o'clock noon the Senate turn to the consideration of calendar 101, S. 
395 regarding the Alaska Power Administration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.

                          ____________________
```
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Costco Wholesale Corporation 

Executive Bonus Plan 
 For fiscal year 2015,
executive officers are, depending upon the individual, eligible for a bonus award of up to approximately $200,000. The final bonus amounts are subject to the approval of the Compensation Committee. 

Eligibility for up to 50% of the bonus amount is determined by whether the Company has met its pre-tax income goal for the year, as indicated in the
Company’s internal budget. 
 The remaining 50% is determined by goals relevant to the executive officer’s area of responsibility: 

For those whose responsibilities are operational, the goals relate to sales, controllable expenses, shrink, and pre-tax profit in their areas
of responsibility. 
 For those whose responsibilities are primarily buying, the goals relate to sales, gross margin, shrink, and inventory
turns in their areas of responsibility. 
 For those who responsibilities combine operational and buying functions, the goals relate to a
combination of those described in the prior two paragraphs. 
 For those whose responsibilities are staff functions, the goals relate to a
combination of Company-wide operational and buying goals, in addition to qualitative factors relevant to their areas of responsibility. 
 To be eligible
for the annual bonus, the individual must still be employed by the Company at the time bonus checks are issued (November).
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 30, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 30, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18A2155. FORTSON, BENTLEY AND GRIFFIN, P.A. v. KELLY C. HOLLOWAY.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
News United States Air Force
 Berlin Airlift Roundtable Discussion (Hosted by SECAF Frank Kendall)Published Aug. 7, 2023
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                A roundtable discussion on the legacy of the Berlin Airlift, moderated by Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and Dr. Ed Goldstein from SAF/PA. Also at the table, retired Col. Wolfgang Samuel, German Embassy Assistant Air Attaché Lt. Col. Bjorn “Jason” Jansen, Eddie Ide, Berlin Airlift Veterans Association, and Mike Halverson, son of the “Candy Bomber” Col. Gail Halverson. These four provide unique insights into the largest airlift effort in history while discussing the legacy left behind. (U.S. Air Force video).






**Watch on YouTube**Berlin Airlift 



SecAF 



Retired Col. Wolfgang Samuel 



Eddie Ide 



Mike Halverson 



Candy Bomber 



Gail S. Halvorsen 



Lt. Col. Bjorn Jason Jansen 



Frank Kendall 



history 



roundtable discussion 



Dr. Ed Goldstein 



legacy
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 99.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
                            TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the quarterly report of Engineered Support
Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30,
2003 (the "Report"), I, Gerald E. Daniels, Vice Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

         (1)  The Report complies with Sections 13(a) and 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:  June 16, 2003
      ---------------------------

By:    /s/ Gerald E. Daniels
      ---------------------------
       Gerald E. Daniels
       Vice Chairman and
       Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Engineered Support Systems, Inc. and will be retained by
Engineered Support Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                     25
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAY NEXT

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in 
order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday 
next.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 32.b
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 0F THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*
  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.
 /s/ Edward A. Mammone

Edward A. MammoneSenior Vice President, Finance and 
Principal Accounting OfficerMay 17, 2010
 *
    
    This statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
has been provided to Westwood One, Inc. and will be retained by Westwood One, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Thos. H. Hayes et als. v. John M. Bass et als.

(No. 18, Op. Book No. 1, p. 174.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 15. *Statement of facts, absence of.*Where there is no statement of facts, every presumption will be entertained in favor of the correctness of the verdict and judgment. [2 Tex. 258; 2 Tex. 420; 3 Tex. 357; 10 Tex. 508; 6 Tex. 489; 21 Tex. 394; 21 Tex. 469; 22 Tex. 5.]

*15April 13, 1877.

§ 16. *Injunction.*An injunction for the purpose of staying an execution sued out more than a year after judgment obtained, is unauthorized and void, unless it presents a case coming within some of the exceptions pointed out in the statute. [Pas. Dig. art. 3931; Rev.. Stats, art. 2875.]

Affirmed.
**UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR**

**EXTENSION OF TIM** E Page 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA
- 24
- 0062 IN RE THE PARENTING OF E.C.F. AND E.H.F. ELIZABETH FARNHAM, Petitioner and Appellee , v. ERIK FAR

N HAM, Respondent and Appellant
.

____________________________________________________________

**ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TI**  **ME** On Appeal from the Fo urth Ju di ci alDistrict Court, Missoula County

Cause No. DR
- 32
- 2017
- 712 Before the Hon. Robert Deschamps and Standing Mas t er Gail Bourguignon Bradley J. Jones BULMAN JONES & COOK PLLC P.O. Box 8202 Missoula, MT 59807
- 8202 Attorney for Respondent/ Appellant Emily A. Lucas

Brandi R. Ries RIES LAW GROUP, P.C. P.O. Box 8364 Missoula, MT 59807 Attorney for Petitioner/Appellee Upon consideration of Appellant’s m oti on for extension of time pursuant to Rule 26 of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, and good cause appearing therefrom, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 10 , 2024 to prepare, file and serve his opening brief. Electronically Signed Below

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court April 11 2024

04/11/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0062
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3

v. NO. 32,613 4 MATTHEW C. STURGEON, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LINCOLN COUNTY 7 Karen L. Parsons, District Judge 8 Gary K. King, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Gary C. Mitchell 12 Ruidoso, NM 13 for Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 VANZI, Judge. 162 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has 2 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 3 {2} AFFIRMED. 4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

__________________________________ 6 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

_________________________________ 9 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge 10

_________________________________ 11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 12
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAY NEXT

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in 
order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday 
next.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4958]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                               AMENDMENTS

  Under clause 6 of rule XXIII, proposed amendments were submitted as 
follows:

                                H.R. 961

                         Offered By: Mr. Riggs

       Amendment No. 66: On page 276, strike lines 3 through 7 and 
     insert in lieu thereof the following:

     ``ponds, wastewater retention or management facilities 
     (including dikes and berms, and related structures) that are 
     used by concentrated animal feeding operations or advanced 
     treatment municipal wastewater reuse operations, or 
     irrigation canals and ditches or the maintenance of drainage 
     ditches;''.
```
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHAEL CERBO, ROBERT WILLIAM KAISER AND LOIS KAISER.

March 14, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### S. Miman et al. v. S. Eidman & Bro.

(No. 105, Tex. L. J., vol. 1, p. 78.)

Appeal from Austin County.

March 15, 1877.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 629. *County court; appellate jurisdiction.*By the third section of the act of August 18, 1876 [Acts 15th Leg. p. 172], it is provided that “the county court shall have appellate jurisdiction in civil causes over which the justices’ courts have original jurisdiction, when the judgment of the court appealed from or the amount in controversy shall exceed $20, exclusive of costs.” [Rev. Stats, art. 1165.] It is contended, on the part of appellee, that the portion of the statute above set out, in so far as it gives the right of appeal from the justice’s to the county court, when “ *the amount in*controversy” shall exceed $20, is inoperative and void, because in violation of the constitution on the subject of appeals from justices’ courts to the county courts [Const, art. Y, sec. 16], which section limited the right of appeal to cases where “ *the judgment*” of the court appealed from shall exceed $20, exclusive of costs.

§ 630. *Constitutionality of the law of August 18, 1876.*Sec. 22 of art. Y of the constitution provides that “the legislature shall have power, by local or general law, to increase, diminish or change the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the county courts, and in case of any such change of jurisdiction, the legislature shall also conform the jurisdiction of the other courts to such change.” *Held,*under the authority conferred by this provision, the legislature could change the jurisdiction of the county court in appellate as well as original matters, and that the act in question is therefore constitutional, and that it is the amount in controversy, and not the amount of the judgment appealed from, which tests the jurisdiction both of the county court and the court of appeals.

Reversed and remanded.
#### J. L. Mayo et al. v. Frank Savoni.

(No. 2383, R. Book No. 4, p. 171.)

Appeal from Brazos County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 216. *Special damages.*Special damages are such as are the natural but not the necessary result of the act complained of. To be recoverable, special damages must be specially pleaded. Under a general allegation of damage, a party will not be permitted to prove a special damage. [R. R. Co. v. Shirley, 45 Tex. 357.]

§217. *Evidence of special damage.*On the trial appellee was permitted to prove, over objection, that by reason of the levy of the attachment upon and sale of the goods he was broken up in business, thrown out of employment, and that the value of his services for said time as a clerk was $45 per month. *Held,*that such damages are not too remote, but if properly pleaded and proved are allowable. The wrong-doer is responsible for all the *87consequences which, flow immediately from his wrongful acts. [Fowler & Clepper v. Stonum, 6 Tex. 60.]

November 8, 1882.

§ 218. *Fraud, evidence in cases of declarations of parties.*The main issue in the case being fraud *vel non*in the sale of the goods from S. to S. before the levy of the attachment, *held,*that the court erred in refusing to permit appellants to prove on cross-examination certain declarations made by one of the parties to the sale, in relation to his brother’s connection with the goods, tending to prove that the latter’s claim to said goods was fraudulent, even though these declarations were made subsequent to the pretended sale. The burden of proving the fraud rested upon appellants, and they were relying upon circumstantial evidence to establish it. In such cases great latitude is allowed in the admission of evidence, and any fact which affords any fair presumption or inference as to the real object and intention of the parties may be submitted to the jury. [Wright v. Linn, 16 Tex. 34.] A case directly in point is Garahy v. Bayley & Co. 25 Tex. Sup. 294.

Eeversed and remanded.
[No. 24569-8-II.

Division Two.

May 5, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Brad A. Phillips, *Appellant.*

Appeal from, a judgment of the Superior Court for Kitsap County, No. 99-1-00127-1, Karen B. Conoley, J., entered April 16, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Houghton and Bridgewater, JJ.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 74 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leader time is 
reserved.

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 Yesterday's Air Force: F-104 StarfighterPublished April 4, 2017
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Traci Keller
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- This episode of Yesterday's Air Force looks at the F-104 Starfighter. It was a technological marvel when it first took to the sky in the 1950s. It broke a number of records and was used by many air forces around the world. The F-104 had a long service life; it wasn't retired from active service with the Italian Air Force until 2004.
Yesterday's Air Force is a history and heritage featurette series profiling significant people and missions from the Air Force's past.YAF 



F-104 



Starfighter 



Air Force TV 



heritage 



Yesterday’s Air Force 



Italian air force 



innovation 



World record 



NASA