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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           6,598
<SECURITIES>                                     8,650
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,668
<ALLOWANCES>                                       549
<INVENTORY>                                      5,763
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,971
<PP&E>                                          20,319
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,241
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,092
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,702
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,823
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,092
<SALES>                                         11,657
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,657
<CGS>                                            7,355
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,755
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   549
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,656
<INCOME-TAX>                                       630
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,026
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,026
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
No. 12,312.

#### Lance *v.*Pearce et al.

*Evidence.*— Delivery *of Goods May be Inferred from Gireumstanaes.*— In an action to recover the value of goods sold and delivered, the delivery need not necessarily be proved by direct evidence, for it may, like any other fact, be inferred from circumstances.

*596■Statute oe *Fbattds.*— Charging *Goods to Third Person.*— Collateral *Premise.*—The mere fact that the seller of goods, at the request of the buyer, charges them to a third person, does not make the buyer’s promise to pay a collateral one within the statute of frauds, but such promise is an original undertaking, and is not voidable under the statute.

From th6 Gibson Circuit Court. .

*C. A. Buskirk,*for appellant

*H. A. Yeager,*for appellees.

Elliott, J.

The appellant asks a reversal upon the ground that the evidence fails to prove some of the essential elements of the appellees’ case.

It is true that in order to recover upon a complaint for the value of goods sold and delivered, the plaintiff must prove a delivery, but it is not true that this must be done by direct evidence, for it may, like any other fact, be inferred from circumstances. As there was indirect evidence fully warranting the conclusions of the trial court upon this point, we can not disturb it.

The evidence shows that the goods were sold to the defendant, although they were charged to Albert Kendle at his request. The fact that the goods were charged to Kendle was a mere circumstance tending to support the appellant’s theory, but it is not of such force as to control the'positive testimony upon which the court acted.

The mere fact that the appellees in compliance with appellant’s request charged the goods to Kendle does not make the promise of the appellant a collateral one within the statute of frauds. If the goods were sold to the appellant, and if he promised to pay for them, the undertaking was an original one, and is not voidable under the statute. A buyer can not evade paying for goods sold to him solely upon the ground that they were charged to another person. The fact -of the charge to a third person affords some evidence that the original contract was with him, but the evidence is by no .means of a conclusive character, and in this instance the evi*597dence strongly and satisfactorily shows that the goods were' sold directly to the appellant.

Filed May 16, 1885.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 11

<TABLE>
                                                 ENGINEERED SUPPORT SYSTEMS, INC.
                                         STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                              (in thousands, except per share data)


<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended                            Nine Months Ended
                                                              July 31                                       July 31
                                                ------------------------------------          ------------------------------------
                                                     2000                  1999                    2000                  1999
                                                --------------        --------------          --------------        --------------
<S>                                             <C>                   <C>                     <C>                   <C>
NET INCOME                                       $      3,764          $      1,867            $      8,908          $      5,048
                                                ==============        ==============          ==============        ==============

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE

   Average basic shares outstanding                     6,997                 6,883                   6,968                 5,602
                                                ==============        ==============          ==============        ==============

                                                 $       0.54          $       0.27            $       1.28          $       0.90
                                                ==============        ==============          ==============        ==============


DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

   Average basic shares outstanding                     6,997                 6,883                   6,968                 5,602

   Net effect of dilutive stock options<F1>               258                   123                     195                   158
                                                --------------        --------------          --------------        --------------
                                                        7,255                 7,006                   7,163                 5,760
                                                ==============        ==============          ==============        ==============

                                                 $       0.52          $       0.27            $       1.24          $       0.88
                                                ==============        ==============          ==============        ==============


<FN>
<F1>Based on the treasury stock method

</TABLE>

                             16
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1158 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1158

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year 
  waiting period for divorced spouse's benefits following the divorce.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2007

  Mrs. Lowey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the two-year 
  waiting period for divorced spouse's benefits following the divorce.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD FOR DIVORCED SPOUSE'S 
              BENEFITS FOLLOWING THE DIVORCE IN CASES OF PRIOR RECEIPT 
              OF SPOUSE'S BENEFITS.

    (a) Wife's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(b)(4)(A) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``divorced 
wife--'' and all that follows through ``shall be entitled'' and 
inserting ``divorced wife meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) 
through (D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled''.
    (b) Husband's Insurance Benefits.--Section 202(c)(4)(A) of such Act 
(42 U.S.C. 402(c)(4)(A)) is amended by striking ``divorced husband--'' 
and all that follows through ``shall be entitled'' and inserting 
``divorced husband meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through 
(D) of paragraph (1), shall be entitled''.
    (c) Exemption From Deductions on Account of Work.--Section 
203(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 403(b)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(2)(A) Except as'' and all that follows 
        through ``the benefit to which'' and inserting the following: 
        ``(2) In any case in which any of the other persons referred to 
        in paragraph (1)(B) is entitled to monthly benefits as a 
        divorced spouse under subsection (b) or (c) of section 202 for 
        any month, the benefit to which''; and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (B).

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by section 1 shall apply with respect to 
benefits for months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 28, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
TWENTY-SIX WEEK PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                       7,123,311
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,079,097
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,549,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,952,348
<PP&E>                                      10,686,780
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,970,649
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,045,211
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,537,886
<BONDS>                                     40,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,500,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  (6,238,369)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,045,211
<SALES>                                     16,521,477
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,268,985
<CGS>                                        8,816,089
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,775,886
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,317,829
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,175,270
<INCOME-TAX>                                   991,597
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,183,673
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,183,673
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN B. BEMBRY.

Jan. 14, 1980.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5488-H5489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              FOREIGN AID

  (Mrs. WALDHOLTZ asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, speaking as a jazz fan, wait until next 
year. But today, we will continue debating the American Overseas Act. 
This act takes bold steps to downsize the Federal bureaucracy, and at 
the same time make the United States more responsive to a rapidly 
changing world.
  Critics of this bill have said that this is America turning inward, 
withdrawing from the rest of the world. In fact, however, this is 
America opening its eyes and squarely facing both our need to balance 
the budget and to respond to a very different and changing world. Our 
foreign affairs agencies were created during the cold war, when we had 
[[Page H5489]] to work to outbid the Soviet Union to buy friends 
abroad. Now, in a new post-cold-war world that is fundamentally 
different from the old one, our foreign affairs apparatus is too big 
and outdated.
  The American Overseas Interest Act will overhaul the foreign aid 
bureaucracy by merging three independent agencies into the State 
Department, eliminating outdated bureaucracies, and doing away with 
conflicting and divisive foreign policy. I urge my colleagues to vote 
for this bill, and vote for eliminating bureaucracy and streamlining 
foreign policy. We need foreign policy for the nineties, not for the 
fifties.

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 F-16 crashes in Afghanistan; pilot safely ejectsPublished March 30, 2016
                        
                        By 455th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs
                **BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan (AFNS) --**
                An F-16 Fighting Falcon assigned to the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing crashed during takeoff March 29 at about 8:30 p.m. local time near Bagram Airfield.The pilot safely ejected, was recovered by coalition forces, and is being evaluated by medical personnel at the Craig Joint Theater Hospital on Bagram Airfield. Coalition forces have secured the crash site.F-16s at Bagram Airfield provide 24-hour overwatch and close air support for ground units in Afghanistan. Enemy fire was not a factor in the crash, and Air Force officials will investigate the cause of the crash.crash 



Bagram Airfield 



Afghanistan 



f-16 Related Links
        F-16 Fighting Falcon
                                Sept. 23, 2015
                                The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a compact, multi-role fighter aircraft. It is highly maneuverable and has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack. It provides a relatively low-cost, high-performance weapon system for the United States and allied nations.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002* In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Cronos Group (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Dennis J
Tietz, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Peter J Younger, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, based on their knowledge,
that:  (i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operation of the Company. May 14, 2004 /s/ DENNIS J TIETZ
Dennis J Tietz, Chief Executive Officer /s/ PETER J YOUNGER
Peter J Younger, Chief Financial Officer 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.   *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, other than as required by Section 906, is not deemed to be #filed# with
the Commission or subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the
Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or to the
liabilities of Section 18 of said Act. 31
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1129

AN ACT

To provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance 

of an arterial road in St. Louis County, Missouri.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1129 EH

1 SECTION 1. PROJECT DEFINED. 

2 In this Act, the term ‘‘project’’ means only the por3 tion of St. Louis County, Missouri, arterial road 1151 that 

4 is deed-restricted property, which specifically applies to 

5 approximately 0.3 acres and 540 lineal feet and is identi6 fied as the ‘‘FEMA’’ route in the document entitled 

7 ‘‘Lemay Connector Road for Long-Term Recovery, Rec8 reational Enhancements, & Community, & Economic De9 velopment’’, dated June 1, 2006, on file with the St. Louis 

10 County department of highways and traffic. 

11 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAW. 

12 The St. Louis County arterial road 1151, known as 

13 the ‘‘Lemay Connector Road’’ in St. Louis City and Coun14 ty, Missouri, may be constructed, operated, and main15 tained over the deed-restricted property described in sec16 tion 1, notwithstanding section 404(b)(2) of the Robert 

17 T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

18 (42 U.S.C. 5170c) or Public Law 103–211 and any ease19 ment or other similar restriction pursuant to those Fed20 eral laws on the development of property that requires the 

21 property be maintained for open space, recreation, or wet22 land management. 

23 SEC. 3. NO DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON FLOOD PLAIN. 

24 For the project, St. Louis County, Missouri, shall en25 sure that the project is constructed, operated, and main26 tained in such a manner that would not cause any future 
3

•HR 1129 EH

1 additional flood damage that would not have occurred 

2 without the project. Prior to constructing the project, St. 

3 Louis County or its assignee must identify and agree to 

4 restrict a nearby parcel of land of equal or greater size 

5 to the deed restricted land used for the project so that 

6 such parcel is maintained for open space, recreation, or 

7 wetland management. 

8 SEC. 4. LIABILITY FOR FLOOD DAMAGE. 

9 The Federal Government shall not be liable for future 

10 flood damage that is caused by the project. St. Louis 

11 County, Missouri, or its assignee shall be liable for any 

12 future flood damage that is caused by the project. 

13 SEC. 5. NO FUTURE DISASTER ASSISTANCE. 

14 The deed-restricted property described in section 1 

15 is not eligible for any future disaster assistance from any 

16 other Federal source. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 27, 

2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1129

AN ACT

To provide for the construction, operation, and 

County, Missouri.maintenance of an arterial road in St. Louis
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10311 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v. LOUIS LAVARIS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 6:16 -CR- 26 -1

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Louis Lavaris, Jr., appeals his conviction and the 96

- month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He asserts that the Government failed to state a federal offense in his indictment because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face in that the element “in or affecting commerce” cannot be satisfied merely by the

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 6, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10311 Document: 00514186242 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2017No. 17

- 10311

2 possession of a firearm that had traveled in interstate commerce at some point
in time. As Lavaris concedes, his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Daugherty , 264 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 2001), in which we held that “the constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question ,” id. at 518 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and United States v. Luna , 165 F.3d 316, 319 -22 (5th Cir. 1999), in which we concluded that § 922(j) was similar to § 922(g) and the phrase “shipped or transported in, interstate or foreign commerce,” provided “the requisite nexus to commerce” to allow Congress to exercise its powers under the Commerce Clause. Accordingly, Lavaris’s mo tion for summary disposition is GRANTED and the judgment is AFFIRMED. Case: 17-10311 Document: 00514186242 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2017