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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                           8,093<F1>              12,209
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  333,312                 230,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                    77,654                   3,594
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                          15,703                   7,705
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,221                   1,782
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 279,416                 248,273
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,032                  43,813
<BONDS>                                         81,460                  43,205
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        89,019                  47,478
<OTHER-SE>                                     (54,644)                  2,958
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   279,416<F2>             248,273
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,051                  10,139
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,097                   4,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,642                     197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,423                     814
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,708                   1,217
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5,819)                  3,142
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                   1,098
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,819)                  2,044
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,819)                  2,044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24                     .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24                     .10
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES RESTRICTED CASH OF $ 3,759.
<F2>INCLUDES DEALER AND PROVIDER HOLDBACKS OF $ 129,594.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Pentagon holds 4th Annual Pentagon Sitting Volleyball TournamentPublished Nov. 21, 2014
                        
                        By Master Sgt. Lesley Waters
                        
                        
                        Air Force Public Affairs Agency, Operating Location – P
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Fifty-two active-duty and veteran athletes from each of the military services and the U.S. Special Operations Command participated in the 4th Annual Pentagon Sitting Volleyball Tournament Nov. 20 at the Pentagon Athletic Club.
The one-day tournament, in conjunction with Warrior Care Month, is designed to increase awareness of programs and resources available to wounded, ill and injured service members, their families and those who care for them.  
“When recovering service members take the opportunity to focus on their abilities and strengths during the often lengthy road to recovery the results shown are nothing short of miracles,” said Steve Otero, the Air Force Wounded Warrior (AFW2) Program communications coordinator.
This year’s theme, “Show of Strength,” was chosen to showcase the wounded warriors and their strengths as they reintegrate back to duty or transition into the civilian sector.
Participants in the tournament included 12 current and retired Airmen who are part of the AFW2 program.  The program’s mission is to motivate, encourage and sustain participation and competition through adaptive sports.
An Air Force wounded warrior is any seriously or very seriously wounded, ill or injured Airman identified on a casualty report, or recommended by the medical community, as having highly complex medical conditions identified by the medical community.  Also included are Airmen who have been referred to the Integrated Disability Evaluation System for post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury and/or other mental health conditions, or who have been retained for more than six months on medical Title 10 orders, or returned to Title 10 orders, for medical conditions related to deployment.  
The Air Force wounded warriors recently participated in the 2014 Warrior Games in Colorado Springs, Colorado.  The 40-person team won 48 medals (16 gold, 16 silver and 16 bronze), as well as the Ultimate Champion Award for the second year in a row.
“Military adaptive sports are just one of the unique rehabilitation programs within the wounded warrior program,” Otero said. “Mentorship, caregiver, career and family programs are all a part of the personalized services available to Airmen participants.” 
For more information about Warrior Care Month, visit www.defense.gov/warriorcaremonth.AFW2 



Warrior Games 



volleyball 



Pentagon 



Washington 



D.C. 



wounded warriors
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

JAVIER ARELLANO QUINONES ,

Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ,

Appellee. § § § § § § No. 08

- 2 1

- 00 0 52

- C R

Appeal from the
346t h District Court of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 20160D01014

- 346

- 1 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Javier Arellano Quinones is attempting to appeal his conviction. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court ’ s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). In a criminal case, a defendant ’ s notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed in open court , or ninety days after the sentence is imposed in open court if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. See
T EX
. R

. A PP
. P . 26.2(a)(1), (2). While a court of appeals may extend the time to file the notice of appeal, both the notice of appeal and th e extension motion must be filed within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. See T EX
. R

. A PP
. P

. 26.3. In the absence of a timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the ap peal2

in a criminal case and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals may grant a defendant the right to pursue an out

- of

time appeal as a form of habeas corpus relief in felony cases. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241 , 243 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (orig. proceeding) (explaining that writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs out

- of

- time appeals from felony convictions). Quinones previously filed a habeas petition with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals requesting an out

- of

- time appeal. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the application to the convi cting trial court for findings of fact and a recommendation. Although the convicting trial court recommended that Quinones’ habeas application should be granted, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Quinones’ request for an out

- of

- time appeal in February 2019 , h olding that Quinones was “ estopped from claiming that trial counsel was ineffective given that A pplicant refused to speak to counsel after he was sentenced.” See Ex parte
Are l lano Quinones , No. WR

- 88,930

- 01, 2019 WL 962403, at *1 (Tex.Crim.App. Feb. 13, 2019) (not designated for publication). Because the time to file a notice of appeal from the Octob er 27, 2017, judgment of conviction has expir ed, and because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has denied Quinones ’ leave to pursue an out

- of

- time appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Quinones’ attempted appeal. This attempted appeal is hereby dism issed.
April 28, 2021 GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ. (Do Not Publish)
583 A.2d 310

#### DEBORAH A. MEDER, ETC. v. RESORTS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. v. CLAREMONT INTERIOR CONTRACTORS, INC.

January 23, 1990.

Cross-petition for certification denied. (See 240 *N.J.Super.*470, 573 A.2d 922)
#### In re Ruben HERNANDEZ, Jr.

No. 2010-B-1927.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 15, 2010.

In re Hernandez Jr., Ruben.; —Plaintiff; Applying for Rehearing of this Court’s ac*7tion dated November 5, 2010; to the Office of Disciplinary Board No. 07-DB-042 C/W 08-DB-062.

Denied.
<PAGE>
                 QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Quintiles Transnational Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
L. Bierman, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) 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 result of operations of
         the Company.


                                                   /s/ James L. Bierman
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   James L. Bierman
                                                   Executive Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

                                                   August 14, 2002
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Date
Exhibit 21.1
 Subsidiaries of Meade Instruments Corp., a Delaware corporation
 Name of Subsidiary
    
    JurisdictionMeade Instruments Holding Corp.
    
    CaliforniaMeade Instruments Mexico, S. de R. L. de C.V.
    
    MexicoMeade Coronado Holdings Corp.
    
    CaliforniaCoronado Instruments, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaMTSC Holdings, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaSimmons Outdoor Corp.
    
    DelawareMC Holdings, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaMeade Instruments (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.
    
    ChinaMeade Instruments Europe Corp.
    
    CaliforniaMeade.com.
    
    CaliforniaMeade Instruments Foreign Sales Corporation Limited
    
    Jamaica
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 30 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding 

the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high 

quality. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 13, 2007 

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois introduced the following joint resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States regarding the right of citizens of the United 

States to health care of equal high quality. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 30 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. All persons shall enjoy the right to 

3 health care of equal high quality. 

4 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to en5 force and implement this article by appropriate legisla6 tion.’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
* 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 June 25, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41258 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTHONY JIMERSON, also known as AJ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:01-CR-31-3

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John W. Tunnell, court-appointed counsel for appellant Anthony Jimerson, has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jimerson has not filed a response to counsel’s brief.
Ou r independent review of the record and counsel’s brief shows that there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel isNo. 02-41258 -2- excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is
DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
No. 11,934.

#### Gathright et al. *v.*Burke.

*Notice.*— Name.—Signs.—A father, who had been in business for a number of years, sold out to his son, who continued the business; no change was made in the names or signs about the place of business, and the son bought goods of the appellants, who had formerly dealt with his father, but the sellers had notice that the father had retired, and that the son had succeeded him.

*Held,*that the father was not liable for the goods sold to the son.

From the Floyd Circuit Court.

*J. H. Stotsenbury*and P. *H. Jewett,*for appellants.

*J. G. Howard, J. F. Read, M. Z. Stannard*and *F. B. Burke,*for appellee.

Elliott, J.

The appellants brought this action to recover the value of a lot of flour alleged to have been sold and delivered by them to the appellee.

The questions in the case arise on the evidence, and the controlling one is: To whom was the flour sold and delivered, the appellee James Burke, or his son William Burke ? The court held that the purchaser was the son and not the father.

It is settled that where the evidence is conflicting, this court will not undertake to weigh it, but will accept that which the trial court accepted as credible and satisfactory. *Arnold*v. *Wilt,*86 Ind. *367; Cain*v. *Goda,*94 Ind. 555; *Julian*v. *Western Union Tel. Co.,*98 Ind. 327. This rule *591requires us to accept as satisfactory the testimony of the witnesses upon which the court below acted.

Filed May 19, 1885.

It appears from the evidence that James Burke, the father, had for a long time been engaged in business and had purchased goods of the appellants, but, before the purchase of the flour sued for, he sold out to his son and embarked in other business. After the son bought from his father, he continued business at the same place and made no change in the signs about the place. The appellant’s contention is that ’this evidence makes a case in their favor under the rule declared in *Elverson*v. *Leeds,*97 Ind. 336 (49 Am. R. 458). That ■case was a very peculiar one and can not have a very general-application, and, certainly, can not apply here, where there-is evidence fully tending to show that the party who had sold out the stock, and retired from business, did not know that purchases were being made by his vendee under the name in. which the business was formerly conducted,'and where the sellers knew of the change. We say that there was evidence that the appellants knew of the change in the ownership of the store, because William Burke testified that he notified the agent who took the orders not to charge the orders to James Burke. In addition to this testimony there were other circumstances justly supporting the inference that the agents of the appellants, through whom the business with William Burke was transacted, must have known that James Burke was not the buyer.

Judgment affirmed.
News United States Air Force
 President Trump visits Luke AFBPublished Oct. 20, 2018
                        
                        By Senior Airman Ridge Shan
                        
                        
                        56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS) --**
                President Donald J. Trump visited Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, Oct. 19, to discuss military weapons and technology capabilities and learn about the 56th Fighter Wing’s pilot training mission.After touring a static display of the F-35A Lightning II and other military equipment, Trump convened with cabinet members, congressmen, and defense industry leaders in a roundtable discussion on current defense issues including cybersecurity, stealth technology, and F-35 development.“We make the greatest military equipment in the world,” Trump said. “American-made military products are more effective, more lethal, and more precise than any other equipment in the world. It’s not even a contest, there’s nothing close.”Trump acknowledged and emphasized the importance of Arizona’s military presence, including Luke AFB’s role in building the future of airpower.“This incredible state is home to six major military installations, more than 30,000 military personnel, and thousands of defense companies,” Trump said. “Arizona’s military defense industries support 76,000 jobs and create $11.5 billion in economic output.”Additionally, Trump praised the F-35’s capabilities and the progression of its pilot training program under the guidance and direction of Brig. Gen. Todd Canterbury, 56th Fighter Wing commander.“It is an honor and a privilege to lead the more than 5,600 men and women of Luke Air Force Base,” Canterbury said. “Our mission is simple: We train the world’s greatest fighter pilots here. Luke Air Force Base is responsible for training about 95% of the United States Air Force’s fighter pilots.”Trump concluded his visit with a meet and greet, where he spoke with, shook hands, and took photos with Airmen from units across the base, before departing on Marine One.POTUS 



POTUS visit 



President 



Trump 



Luke AFB 



F-35A 



Lightning II 



AF 



Air Force 



cyber 



security 



Stealth 



technology 



development 



training 



fighter 



pilot
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1249 

To include dehydroepiandrosterone as an anabolic steroid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2007 

Mr. ROSKAM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To include dehydroepiandrosterone as an anabolic steroid. 

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

3 SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF DEHYDROEPIANDROSTERONE. 

4 Section 102(41)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act 

5 (21 U.S.C. 802(41)(A)) is amended— 

6 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by strik7 ing ‘‘corticosteroids, and dehydroepiandrosterone’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘and corticosteroids’’; 

9 (2) by redesignating clauses (x) through (xlx) 

10 as clauses (xi) through (xlxi), respectively; and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1249 IH

1 (3) by inserting after clause (ix) the following: 

2 ‘‘(x) dehydroepiandrosterone (androst-5-en-3β3 ol-17-one);’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.

*Name:*                     University of Notre Dame Site Visit in Physics (1208).                

*Date and Time:*                     Tuesday, October 19, 2010; 8 a.m.-6 p.m.                

Wednesday, October 20, 2010: 8 a.m.-4 p.m.

*Place:*                     University of Notre Dame, Indiana 46556.                

*Type of Meeting:*                     Partially Closed.                

*Contact Person:*                     Dr. Kathleen McCloud, Program Director for Physics Education and Disciplinary Research, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8236.                

*Purpose of Meeting:*                     To provide an oversight report on progress of research performed under a Cooperative Agreement with the National Science Foundation.                

## Agenda

### Tuesday. October 19, 2010

Open 8:15-10 JINA science overview talk and discussion.

Closed 10:30-10:45 Executive Session.

Open 10:45-12:15 JINA astrophysics highlights.

Open 2-3 JINA nuclear Physics experiments.

Closed 3:50-4:30 Executive Session.

Open 4:30-6:30 Student Poster Session.

### Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Closed 8:30-9:30 Executive Session.

Open 10-11 Administrators and JINA Discussions.

Closed 11-12 Executive Session and writing session.

Open 1:30-2 Administrators and JINA discussions.

Closed 2:30-4 Writing session and Close out.

*Reason for Closing:*                     The proposal contains proprietary or confidential material including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                

Dated: September 15, 2010.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-23375 Filed 9-17-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P