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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          27,867
<SECURITIES>                                    45,907
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,371
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,236
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,149
<PP&E>                                          15,274
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,404
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,943
<BONDS>                                            359
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           253
<OTHER-SE>                                      92,296
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,223
<SALES>                                        105,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,411
<CGS>                                           47,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   88,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (2,238)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,678
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,470
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,208
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1335 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1335

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
508 East Main Street in Seneca, South Carolina, as the ``S/Sgt Lewis G. 
                     Watkins Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. S/SGT LEWIS G. WATKINS POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 508 East Main Street in Seneca, South Carolina, shall be 
known and designated as the ``S/Sgt Lewis G. Watkins Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``S/Sgt 
Lewis G. Watkins Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### G. W. Porter *v.*City of Abilene.

(No. 6954.)

Appeal from Taylor County.

H. L. Bentley and T. W. Dougherty, counsel for appellants.

D. G-. Hill, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 157. *Municipal corporations; power of to condemn private property for street must be strictly pursued; proceedings in exercise of such power held void.*Proceed*222ings were instituted in the county court of Taylor county in behalf of the city of Abilene to condemn certain real estate of G. W. Porter for street purposes. The power of condemnation of property for streets, etc., is expressly conferred upon cities by our statutes, and the proceedings are required to be regulated, governed and controlled by the laws in force in regard to condemnation by railroad companies. [R. S.', art. 478, and Gen. Laws 21st Leg., pp. 3, 4.] It is a general and well-established rule that the power given by statute in such cases, with all constitutional and statutory limitations and directions for its exercise, must be strictly pursued. [2 Dill. Mun. Corp., §§ 604, 612; Rhine v. City of McKinney, 53 Tex. 354.] The law under which real estate belonging to individuals can be condemned for public uses by an incorporated city requires, among other things: *First.*That-there must be an effort on the part of the city and the owner of the property to agree on the amount of compensation to be allowed to said owner for said property. *Second.*If the amount of such compensation cannot be agreed on, then, and not until then, the city council of said city shall Cause to be stated in writing the real estate or property sought to be taken, the name of the owner thereof, and his residence, if known, and file the same with the county .judge of the county in which said property, or part of it, is situated. *Third.*On- the filing of this paper the county judge must forthwith, in term time or in vacation, appoint three disinterested freeholders of the county to assess the damages to accrue to the owner by reason of such proposed condemnation, and preference must be given to those that may be agreed on between said corporation and said owner of said property; and they shall be sworn to “assess said damages fairly and impartially, and in accordance with law.” [R. S., arts. 4182-4184.] These provisions of the statute do not appear to have been observed or complied with in the proceedings instituted in this case for the condemna*223tion of appellant’s property. Such being the cage, the proceedings are wholly void. Because none of the prerequisites of the law have been complied with as provided by statute, the same are entirely insufficient to support the authority of the court to act in the premises, and the judgment and proceedings are an absolute nullity and void. The judgment is reversed and the entire proceeding is dismissed, at the costs of the appellee, and the injunction heretofore granted by Judge Willson, and which has been consolidated with this case, is hereby made perpetual.

June 25, 1890.

Reversed and dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
 This  schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted  from  the
condensed   consolidated   balance   sheet  at  March  31,  1999  and  condensed
consolidated  statement of income for the six months ended March 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.    
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000771790
<NAME>                        STEEL TECHNOLOGIES INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1  
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999    
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999 
<CASH>                                           3,257     
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,324  
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,038)
<INVENTORY>                                      73,024
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               139,274 
<PP&E>                                         173,414 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (66,495) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 276,633  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,204 
<BONDS>                                         97,345 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,018
<OTHER-SE>                                     116,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   276,633  
<SALES>                                        106,891
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,891 
<CGS>                                           92,366 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   92,366 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,265 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,823
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,437 
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,544
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,893 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,893
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 2093

DONAT CALEB PORTER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General; JOSHUA STEIN, Attorney General of North Carolina; ROXANN H. VANEEKHOVEN; JENNIFER M. TAYLOR; CASEY E. WALLACE; MARTIN B. MCGEE; DAVID BRENT CLONINGER; BENJAMIN G. GOFF; VAN SHAW; DAVID BRADSON RILEY; JOSH W. HELMS; JAMES N. BAILEY; KEVIN PFISTER; DUSTIN GROOMS; JAMES ROMINGER; CITY OF CONCORD , Defendants

- Appe llees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Loretta C. Biggs , District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 00573

- LCB

- JEP )

Submitted : March 23, 2022 Decided: July 2 8 , 2022

Before GREGORY , Chief Judge , AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Donat Caleb Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Martin Koch, LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD M. KOCH, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina; Steven Andrew Bader, Raleigh, North Carolina , Patrick Houghton Flanagan, CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP, Charlotte, USCA4 Appeal: 21-2093 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/28/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2093 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/28/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
Donat Caleb Porter appeals the district court’s orde r and judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

. Porter v. Garland , No. 1:20

- cv - 00573

- LCB

- JEP (M.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the fac ts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 21-2093 Doc: 17 Filed: 07/28/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
---

Exhibit 32.2








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 Annual Report of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harry J. White, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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








Dated:  March 8, 2010
/s/ HARRY J. WHITE, JR.Harry J. White, Jr.Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and will be retained by Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
130904-F-XX000-001.JPG
            GARY A. O'CONNELLGary A. O'Connell serves as a Defense Intelligence Senior Leader in the position of Chief Scientist for the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. As Chief Scientist, Mr. O'Connell guides the 3,000-person center’s analytic production mission, ensuring timely delivery of relevant intelligence data products and services to Air Force and joint operational warfighters, acquisition and force modernization communities, and senior defense and intelligence community policy-making customers.Mr. O’Connell began his government career as a co-op student with the Naval Surface Weapons Center in Dahlgren, Va. Upon graduation from the University of Cincinnati, he started work as an air-to-air missile analyst for the Foreign Technology Division, now NASIC. Prior to his current assignment, he was the Associate Chief Scientist of the Air and Electronics Directorate, NASIC.**EDUCATION**1981 Bachelor of Science degree in aerospace engineering, University of Cincinnati, Ohio1986 Master of Science degree in aeronautical engineering, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio1997 Master of Science degree in national resource strategy, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C.2004 Intelligence Community Senior Leadership Program, Washington, D.C.2006 Executive Leader Program, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill.**CAREER CHRONOLOGY**1. June 1981 - September 1988, Air-to-Air Missile Analyst, Foreign Technology Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio2. September 1988 - August 1992, Chief, Air-to-Air Weapons Branch, Foreign Technology Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio3. August 1992 - September 1993, Chief, Program Development Branch, Foreign Technology Division, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio4. October 1993 - July 1996, Chief, Acquisition Integration Division, National Air Intelligence Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio5. August 1996 - June 1997, Student, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C.6. July 1997 - September 1997, Chief, Futures Division, NAIC, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio7. September 1997 - January 2004, Associate Chief Scientist for Global Threat, National Air and Space Intelligence Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio8. January 2004 - July 2005, Associate Chief Scientist, Air and Electronics Directorate, NASIC, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio9. July 2005 - present, Chief Scientist, NASIC, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio**AWARDS AND HONORS**2007 Meritorious Senior Professional Presidential Rank Award(Current as of September 2013)
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 27, 2015

No. 04-15-00149-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.L.C., J.K.C., AND L.E.C.,

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14658B

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant seeks to appeal a partial summary judgment in a parental termination case. 

Although the trial court’s partial summary judgment determined that appellant committed three 

acts enumerated in section 161.001(1) of the Texas Family Code, which are acts permitting the 

trial court to terminate appellant’s parental rights, the trial court did not resolve whether 

termination is in the best interest of the children under section 161.001(3). Accordingly, the 

judgment is not a final, appealable judgment. See Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of 

Appeals, 722 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex. 1986); Northeast Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 

893, 895 (Tex. 1966).

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days of the 

date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All other 

appellate deadlines are suspended pending our determination of whether we have jurisdiction to 

consider this appeal.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of March, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Strauss & Levy v. S. Hernsheim & Bros.

(No. 2857.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

*(Transferred from, Austin.J*

Joseph M. Dickson, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellees.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 408. *Non-resiclent of the state; jurisdiction of suit against, may be acquired by garnishment; case stated.*Appellants instituted this suit against appellees in justice’s court to recover $115 damages for breach of a contract. Appellees were non-residents of this state, residing in the state of Louisiana. At the institution of the suit appellants sued out a writ of garnishment against the firm of Loeb & Ereiberg, residents of Dallas county, Texas. Citations issued for appellants to the state of Louisiana, and were served upon them in that state in accordance with the provisions of the statute. [R. S. arts. 1230, 1234.] Loeb & Ereiberg, the garnishees, answered the writ of garnishment, acknowledging an indebtedness to appellees in the sum of $191.58. Appellees appeared for the purpose only of pleading to the jurisdiction of the court over their persons, and did so plead, alleging their non-residence in this state. Their plea was overruled, and judgment was rendered against them for the amount sued for and for costs. No disposition appears to have been made of the garnishment proceeding against Loeb & Ereiberg. Appellees appealed to the county court, and in that court again presented their plea to the jurisdiction, and their said plea was sustained and the cause was dismissed. *Held:*The validity of the extraterritorial *482service of citation, such as was had in this case, has been repeatedly upheld in this state where the action is one *in*rem, bringing the property, effects and credits of the non-resident within the control of the court by attachment or garnishment. [Jones v. Jones, 60 Tex. 451; Trevino v. Trevino, 54 Tex. 261; Fiebleman v. Edmonds, 69 Tex. 334; 2 App. C. C. §§ 101, 295, 304.] Garnishment is a species of attachment, and is a proceeding essentially *in rem.*It brings the effects and credits of the non-resident within the control of the court. See this subject fully discussed in Murphy v. Wallace, *post.*The trial court erred in sustaining appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction.

December 5, 1888.

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 2013 Holiday/Winter Safety Campaign wraps up on positive notePublished Jan. 20, 2014
                        
                        By Natalie Eslinger
                        
                        
                        Air Force Safety Center Public Affairs
                **KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. --**
                For the first time since 2010, there were no Airmen lost between Dec. 21, 2013, and Jan. 1 when Airmen are most at risk due to holiday celebrations, increased travel and fatigue.
"Every Airman owns a piece of this milestone," said Maj. Gen. Kurt F. Neubauer, Air Force chief of safety. "It means Airmen did everything right: designated drivers, no distracted driving, and travel planning were among the risk-management techniques used. Commanders, supervisors, friends, family and wingmen are also winners."
"The efforts of all Airmen in keeping safety a priority contributed to this achievement," said Bill Parsons, Air Force chief of ground safety.
The Holiday/Winter Safety Campaign, which ran Nov. 22, 2013, through Jan. 2, ended with four Class A fatalities, as did the FY13 campaign. Of those, one involved a private motor vehicle, one involved a motorcycle, and two were sports and recreation-related. Overall, there was a decrease in reported mishaps resulting in injuries. During the campaign period, there were 122 Class C mishaps (42 on duty and 80 off duty), representing a decrease of more than 31 percent from the same time last year.
"Keeping safety as the goal for every activity, on and off duty, is the way to put mission first," Parsons said. "When Airmen protect the Air Force's most valuable asset - themselves - they are preserving combat capability."winter campaign 



Air Force Safety Center 



safety
News United States Air Force
 Minot tests Minuteman III with launch from Vandenberg AFBPublished Feb. 22, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs
                **VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) --**
                A team of Air Force Global Strike Command Airmen from the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, and the 625th Strategic Operations Squadron at Offutt AFB, Nebraska, aboard the Airborne Launch Control System, launched an unarmed LGM-30G Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile equipped with a test reentry vehicle Feb. 20 from Vandenberg AFB.The ICBM's reentry vehicle, which contained a telemetry package used for operational testing, traveled approximately 4,200 miles to the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Test launches verify the accuracy and reliability of the ICBM weapon system, providing valuable data to ensure a continued safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. All Minuteman III test launches are supported by a team from the 576th Flight Test Squadron at Vandenberg AFB."The flight test program demonstrates one part of the operational capability of the ICBM weapon system,” said Col. Craig Ramsey, the 576th FLTS commander. “When coupled with the other facets of our test program, we get a complete picture of the weapon system's reliability. But perhaps most importantly, this visible message of national security serves to assure our partners and dissuade potential aggressors."Minot AFB is one of three missile bases with crew members standing alert 24/7, year-round, overseeing the nation’s ICBM alert forces."It has been an amazing experience for the operations and maintenance members of Team Minot to partner with the professionals from the 576th FLTS, 30th Space Wing and 625th STOS,” said Maj. Keith Schneider, the 91st MW Task Force director of operations. “Everyone involved has worked hard and dedicated themselves to the mission.”The ICBM community, including the Defense Department, the Energy Department and U.S. Strategic Command uses data collected from test launches for continuing force development evaluation. The ICBM test launch program demonstrates the operational credibility of the Minuteman III and ensures the United States’ ability to maintain a strong, credible nuclear deterrent as a key element of U.S. national security and the security of U.S. allies and partners.Minuteman III 



ICBM 



missile 



Minot AFB 



Vandenberg AFB 



AFGSC Related Links
        LGM-30G Minuteman III
                                Sept. 30, 2015
                                The LGM-30G Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, is an element of the nation's strategic deterrent forces under the control of the Air Force Global Strike Command.