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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          18,304
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,982
<ALLOWANCES>                                       405
<INVENTORY>                                     14,043
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,205
<PP&E>                                         190,733
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,599
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 229,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,042
<BONDS>                                              0<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           19,891
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (19,814)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   229,584
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               162,565
<CGS>                                          131,646
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  151,902
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,983
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,070
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,390)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,390)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 12,745
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,135)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR ACCOMPANYING
NOTES THERETO.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 85 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    RECESS UNTIL 8:30 A.M. TOMORROW

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come 
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in 
recess under the previous order.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 10:08 p.m., recessed until 
Tuesday, May 23; 1995, at 8:30 a.m. 

```
News United States Air Force
 Gaming research laboratory debuts new websitePublished June 8, 2015
                        
                        By Michela Greco
                        
                        
                        711th Human Performance Wing
                **WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFNS) --**
                The opportunity to challenge high school students to adapt commercial off-the-shelf gaming technology to help solve Air Force training problems is one reason why Jennifer Winner said she loves working for the Air Force Research Laboratory.
Winner, a researcher with AFRL's Human Effectiveness Directorate, supported the Gaming Research Integration for Learning Laboratory (GRILL). The GRILL mission is to conduct training research using game-based technologies to increase the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the Air Force by leveraging affordable, off-the-shelf technologies. The GRILL is also one of the Air Force science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) outreach efforts to increase youth interest in those disciplines.
"Every day I work with student researchers I'm amazed by their talent and creativity," Winner said. "The GRILL introduces them to real Air Force technical problems and challenges them to work together using gaming software to identify candidate solutions."
The GRILL team recently relaunched an updated version of their website with more information on the program. The site has information about GRILL research projects along with information regarding opportunities for high school, undergraduate, and graduate students, teachers, and collegiate researchers. In addition to outreach information, the new website houses free challenge problem downloads for STEM students and teachers. These challenge problems and tutorials are intended to guide and support instruction for middle and high school students working with 3-D modeling and simulation tools.
AFRL considers STEM educational outreach an investment in the future workforce, Winner said.  Air Force STEM efforts like GRILL introduce young people to Air Force military and civilian mentors and the work performed in the Defense Department laboratories. The ultimate goal is to create a pipeline for recruitment of future scientists and engineers.
For more information, please visit the **GRILL website**.technology 



AFRL 



stem 



GRILL 



Gaming Research Integration for Learning Laboratory
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    BILL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

  Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that 
that committee did on this day present to the President, for his 
approval, a bill of the House of the following title:

       H.R. 1421. An act to provide that references in the 
     statutes of the United States to any committee or officer of 
     the House of Representatives the name or jurisdiction of 
     which was changed as part of the reorganization of the House 
     of Representatives at the beginning of the One Hundred Fourth 
     Congress shall be treated as referring to the currently 
     applicable committee or officer of the House of 
     Representatives.

                          ____________________
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TECK KIM NG,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72431

Agency No. A070

- 088

- 937

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 3 , 2020 * *

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE , Circuit Judges

.

Teck Kim Ng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen exclusion proceedings

conducted in absentia

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the

petition for review.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 72431

The BIA denied Ng’s motion to reopen because he failed to establish

reasonable cause for his failure to appear at his hearing, and in the alternative, as a

matter of discretion based upon his extreme lack of diligence in pursuing his

motion. In his opening brief, Ng failed t o challenge the BIA’s denial of his motion

to reopen as a matter of discretion , which is dispositive. See INS v. Rios

- Pineda

,

471 U.S. 444, 449 (1985) ( a motion to reopen is within the sound discretion of the

Attorney General, and the Attorney General has “broad discretion” to grant or deny

motions to reopen) ; Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir.

2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s open ing brief are

waived).

Because the denial as a matter of discretion is dispositive, we need not

address Ng’s contentions regarding whether he established reasonable cause for his

failure to appear

. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2 004) (the

courts and the agency are not required to make findings on issues the decision of

which is unnecessary to the results).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
417 A.2d 722

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Willie Lee HARPER, Appellant.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued April 10, 1979.

Filed Jan. 4, 1980.

*427William F. Scarpetti, Jr., Erie, for appellant.

Shad Connelly, Assistant District Attorney, Erie, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, President Judge, and WIEAND and HOFFMAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Willie Lee Harper, was convicted of receiving stolen goods1 at a jury trial in Erie County. Boiler-plate post-trial motions were filed and dismissed by order of the court dated December 28, 1973. Appellant was sentenced to serve from one to four years imprisonment. In January, 1978, appellant filed a petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act,2 raising numerous allegations of trial error and ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to perfect his appellate rights, among other things. Although the lower court’s order of March 9, 1978 set a hearing date on the PCHA petition, we have no indication from the record that the hearing actually took place nor are there any notes of testimony. The only disposition we have is the order of court dated April 27, 1978, granting appellant the right to appeal to our court nunc pro tunc. We have no further disposition of any of the issues raised in the PCHA petition, nor is there an opinion of the PCHA court. We also do not *428have an opinion of the lower court upon dismissal of the post-trial motions.

The proper procedure in such instances is for .the judge at the PCHA level to make a determination on the ineffectiveness of counsel issue and then reach the underlying merits of the other issues raised, if necessary. See 19 P.S. §§ 1180-9, 1180-10; *Commonwealth v. Roundtree,*469 Pa. 241, 364 A.2d 1359 (1976). The aggrieved party then takes an appeal from that adjudication. When the PCHA court circumvents this process and merely grants an appeal nunc pro tunc, our court has quashed the appeal. *See Commonwealth v. Butler,*261 Pa.Super. 486, 395 A.2d 1015 (1978); *Commonwealth v. Valezquez,*244 Pa.Super. 327, 368 A.2d 745 (1976). Hence the present appeal is quashed without prejudice to any rights appellant may have under the PCHA, and the case is remanded to the post-verdict court for an adjudication of the issues raised in the PCHA petition.

Appeal quashed and case remanded.

1

. Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3925 (1973).

2

. Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. §§ 1180-1 et seq. (Supp. 1979-80), repealed by § 2(a) Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 202, No. 53, generally effective June 27, 1978, to take effect two years after effective date.
#### In re Kristopher S. KOLLYNS, Petitioner.

No. 00-7277.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 21, 2000.

Decided Jan. 8, 2001.

Kristopher S. Kollyns, petitioner pro se.

Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kristopher S. Kollyns has filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court seeking the recusal of the district court judge in an action filed in state court and removed to federal district court. Although mandamus is a proper avenue to seek judicial recusal, *In re Beard,*811 F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir.1987), mandamus relief is not warranted in this case because the case has now been remanded to state court and is no longer pending before the judge in question. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
#### Amir EBRAHIMI, Appellant v. Joseph D. DUFFY, Appellee.

No. 00-5140.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Jan. 18, 2001.

Before GINSBURG, TATEL, and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 31, 2000 be affirmed. Appellant presents no arguments regarding the propriety of the order on review. In any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s second motion to reopen, which made no arguments undermining the district court’s dismissal, without prejudice, of appellant’s complaint. *See Illinois Dept. of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S. Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (denial of Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment reviewed for abuse of discretion); *see also Murray v. District of Columbia, 52*F.3d 353, 355 (D.C.Cir.1995) (movant must demonstrate it has potentially meritorious claim or defense as “precondition” to relief under Rule 60(b)).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
#### Joshua E. BOUIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D11-16.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 27, 2011.

Rehearing Denied July 5, 2011.

Joshua Bouie, Jasper, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant *713Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Joshua E. Bouie, Appellant, seeks review of the trial court’s summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Of the four claims Appellant raised, only one has merit. Among his several convictions, Appellant was convicted of attempted burglary of a conveyance with an assault while carrying a weapon. The trial court correctly concluded there was nothing improper about reclassifying his conviction from a second-degree felony to a first-degree felony based on carrying a weapon because it was not an essential element of the charge of burglary of a conveyance with an assault. However, Appellant was sentenced to twenty-eight years’ incarceration, followed by ten years’ probation. This exceeded the thirty-year statutory maximum for a first-degree felony offense and constitutes an illegal sentence. If the trial court wished to impose a split sentence, the combined number of years of incarceration and probation could not exceed the thirty-year statutory maximum. *See Davis v. State,*35 So.3d 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); *Gerow v. State,*516 So.2d 326, 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for re-sentencing on count II and otherwise affirm.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED for resentenc-ing.

PALMER, EVANDER and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32

                    STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended September 30, 2003 (the "Form 10-QSB") of Guaranty  Financial  Corporation
(the  "Company"),  we,  William E. Doyle,  Jr.,  President  and Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company,  and Tara Y. Harrison,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company,  hereby certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

         (a) the Form 10-QSB fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (b) the information  contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly  presents,  in
all material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.



Date:  November 14, 2003                    /s/ William E. Doyle, Jr.
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           William E. Doyle, Jr.
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer





Date:  November 14, 2003                   /s/ Tara Y. Harrison
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Tara Y. Harrison
                                           Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1996 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,124
<SECURITIES>                                    12,666
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     37,573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          27,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,935
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 105,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,862<F1>
<BONDS>                                            539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           200
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   105,355
<SALES>                                          2,775
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,687
<CGS>                                            1,636
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (269)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,811
<INCOME-TAX>                                       778
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,033
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,033
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08
<FN>
<F1>The Company utilizes an unclassified balance sheet presentation.  This format
was followed based on the premise that the videocassette rental inventory
represents assets used by the Company to generate current operating income, and
management believes that to classify all of these costs as noncurrent would be
misleading to the readers of the financial statements because it would not
indicate the level of assets expected to be converted into cash in the next
year as a result of the rentals of the videocassettes.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57743-57744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23657]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Unconventional Resources Technology Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Unconventional 
Resources Technology Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that notice of this meeting 
be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, October 21, 2010, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. (EDT).

ADDRESSES: IBM, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North, SW., Suite 1500, Washington, 
DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elena Melchert, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, Washington, DC 20585. Phone: 
202-586-5600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Committee: The purpose of the Unconventional 
Resources Technology Advisory Committee is to provide advice on 
development and implementation of programs related to onshore 
unconventional natural gas and other petroleum resources to the 
Secretary of Energy and provide comments and recommendations and 
priorities for the Department of Energy Annual Plan per requirements of 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Title IX, Subtitle J, Section 999.
    Tentative Agenda:

12:30 p.m. Registration.
1 p.m. Welcome and Roll Call; Opening Remarks by the Committee Chair; 
Report by the Editing Subcommittee; Facilitated Discussion by the 
Members regarding Final Report; Approval of Committee Final Report.
2:45 p.m. Public Comments.
3 p.m. Adjourn.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The 
Designated Federal Officer and the Chairman of the Committee will lead 
the meeting for the orderly conduct of business. If you would like to 
file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either 
before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements 
regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Elena 
Melchert at the address or telephone number listed above. You must make 
your request for an oral statement at least two business days prior to 
the meeting, and reasonable provisions will be made to include the 
presentation on

[[Page 57744]]

the agenda. Public comment will follow the 5 minute rule.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information Public 
Reading Room, Room 1G-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except federal holidays.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on September 16, 2010.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-23657 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
583 A.2d 337

#### IN RE LONG-TERM OUT-OF-STATE WASTE DISPOSAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF HUNTERDON AND GLENDON ENERGY COMPANY OF GLENDON, PENNSYLVANIA.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 237 *N.J.Super.*516, 568 A.2d 547)
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Derrick MULDER.

No. 2011-K-2511.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 1, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. I, No. 499-143; to the Court of *1161Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-KA-0424.

Denied.