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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          24,776
<SECURITIES>                                    38,581
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,638
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,254
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,038
<PP&E>                                          20,160
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,212
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,233
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,165
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   104,264
<SALES>                                         11,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,110
<CGS>                                              604
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,190
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,105
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,564
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,059
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,815
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,505
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.35
        

</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 377th ABW transfers to AF Global Strike CommandPublished Oct. 5, 2015
                        
                        
                        20th Air Force Public Affairs
                **F.E. WARREN AIR FORCE BASE, Wyo. (AFNS) --**
                The 377th Air Base Wing at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, became part of 20th Air Force Oct. 1, as it shifts from Air Force Materiel Command to Air Force Global Strike Command.The 377th ABW, along with the 28th Bomb Wing from Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, and the 7th BW from Dyess AFB, Texas, moved into AFGSC as part of a consolidation of missions into AFGSC Numbered Air Forces.The consolidation of the 377th ABW along with the three Air Force intercontinental ballistic missile wings into 20th Air Force is specifically intended to help streamline the nuclear enterprise by placing operational mission support within the Air Force’s nuclear major command. The move of the B-1B Lancers from the 28th BW and the 7th BW from Air Combat Command into 8th Air Force will consolidate all the bombers into one Numbered Air Force within AFGSC."The U.S. Air Force is always seeking to improve the way we do business,” said Maj. Gen. Jack Weinstein, the commander of 20th Air Force. “The transfer of the 37th7 ABW highlights the continued improvements the Air Force is making in the nuclear enterprise to ensure we remain the most credible, capable and reliable force for our nation."Weinstein further stated that the nuclear capabilities of the U.S. military form the backbone of U.S. national security.The realignment of the 377th ABW is designed to enhance operational and maintenance support to multiple organizations, providing vital expertise within the nuclear enterprise, to include: The Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratories, the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center, the Space and Missile Systems Center, the Air Force Inspection Agency and the Air Force Safety Center.The move of the 377th ABW to 20th Air Force will not affect employment within the surrounding communities of Kirtland AFB and will primarily be administrative in nature. The 377th ABW will continue to serve as the host installation for various tenant units at Kirtland AFB. Approximately 1,796 military and government civilians will be realigned from AFMC to AFGSC, but will still remain at their current positions."The stewardship of Kirtland AFB under Air Force Material Command was second to none,” Weinstein said. “We are proud to welcome the 377th to (20th Air Force) and we will strive to continue their superb legacy and warfighter support to our Air Force."20th AF 



20th Air Force 



NAF 



AFGSC 



ICBM 



realign 



Kirtland AFB 



AFMC 



F.E. Warren AFB
#### A. H. Swanson et al., Receivers, etc., v. R. D. Melton.

(No. 3915.)

Appeal from Navarro County.

Clark, Dyer & Bollinger, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Davidson, J.

*460§ 264. *Railroad companies; liability of for stocks ksilled on unfenced tracks near depot.*The evidence in this case is uncontroverted that appellee’s colt was killed within forty yards of appellants’ depot, at a point within switch limits, where it would be inconvenient to the public to fence the $rack, as well as to appellants, and there was no evidence of negligence on the part of appellants, their servants or employees, in killing said colt. The testimony excludes the idea of negligence on the part of appellants and their employees at the time of killing the animal in question. In a similar case our supreme court said: “In this case the injury occurred at the depot of the appellants, and within the settled portion of the town, where the companies could not have fenced their track, as public necessity required that it should be kept open; and no proof having been made that the injury occurred from want of ordinary care on the part of appellants, judgment should have been given in their favor. The court should have instructed the jury in accordance with the above principles herein announced, and because this was not done, and the judgment is against the law and the evidence, it must be reversed.” [Railway Co. v. Dunham, 68 Tex. 231. See, also, Railway Co. v. Cocke, 64 Tex. 151; White & W. Civil Cas., § 844; Railway Co. v. Wilson, 3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 19.]

§ 265. *Charge of the court held to be on the weight of evidence.*The court charged the jury: “ If you further believe that at the point at which said animal was killed defendants’ line of railway was so obstructed from clear view by the,piling of wood along the track, the defendants, or their agents, acted without ‘ordinary care,’ as that term is above explained, and that the striking of said animal by the cars was a direct and proximate, result of the alleged obstruction of the view of the track, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover in this'case.” This was a charge on the weight of evidence. [2 Civil *461Cas. Ct. App., § 693; Medlin v. Wilkins, 60 Tex. 409.] Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

December 9, 1891.

Beversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         121,492
<SECURITIES>                                   201,741
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,977
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,562
<INVENTORY>                                     76,964
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               641,331
<PP&E>                                         136,608
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,094
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 641,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,992
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       436,173
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,552
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   641,331
<SALES>                                        143,731
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               143,731
<CGS>                                           63,496
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   63,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,725
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,003
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,601
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,402
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,402
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
#### CITY FISH MARKET, INC. *v.*LEON VARIPAPA

(AC 23113)

Foti, West and Dupont, Js.

Argued March 26

officially released April 15, 2003

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Ex parte B.V. and D.V. (In re B.V. and D.V. v. Wanda Davidson, Karen Marks, and Clay Brannon).

1091632.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 19, 2011.

*1196Robert D. Drummond, Jr., Fairhope, for petitioners.

Keith S. Miller of Wilkerson & Bryan, P.C., Montgomery, for respondent Clay Brannon; W. Gregory Ward, Lanett, for respondent Karen Marks; and Jackson B. Harrison of The Harrison Firm, Montgomery, for respondent Wanda Davidson.

Troy King, atty. gen., and Corey L. Maze and James E. Long, deputy attys. gen., and William G. Parker, Jr., asst. atty. gen., for amicus curiae State ex rel. Attorney General Troy King, in support of the respondents.

MAIN, Justice.

WRIT QUASHED. NO OPINION.

MALONE, C.J., and WOODALL, STUART, BOLIN, PARKER, and SHAW, JJ., concur.

MURDOCK and WISE, JJ., concur specially.

MURDOCK, Justice

(concurring specially).

I was shocked and saddened by the apparently callous and cruel manner (whether or not done on advice of counsel) in which the 18-year-old mentally retarded child in this case was so suddenly taken from the only parents he had ever known, parents who had raised him for almost his entire life. I therefore voted to grant certiorari review in this case. In them brief to this Court, however, the petitioners failed to address legal authority relevant to the issues whether this Court should apply the tort of outrage to conduct of this nature and whether this conduct fell within the protection afforded by the doctrine of state-agent immunity. Accordingly, I concur in the action of the Court today in quashing the writ.

WISE, J., concurs.
#### Robert FLORES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D11-2487.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 18, 2011.

G. Kipling Miller, Daytona Beach, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The Petitioner, Robert Flores, seeks ha-beas corpus relief based on the refusal of the trial • court to set bond. Petitioner asserts that the trial court failed to make the requisite findings to support a denial of bond. We agree.

The petitioner by amended information has been charged with burglary with an assault or battery, which is a first degree felony punishable by imprisonment not exceeding life. *See*Fla. Stat. § 810.02(2)(a). As such, the petitioner is entitled to bond upon reasonable conditions unless the State makes a showing, and the trial court makes a finding, that “proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great” that the petitioner committed the crime charged. *See*Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.131(a). Bond can then be denied. In this case, although the transcript from the hearing confirms that the State presented evidence and argued “proof [of guilt] is evident or the presumption great,” the trial court failed to state either orally or in writing that it was making such a finding in denying bond. *See State v. Arthur,*390 So.2d 717, 719 (Fla.1980).

Alternatively, rule 3.131(a) further allows continued detention where the trial court determines that “there are no conditions of release that can protect the community of risk of harm to persons,” if bond is granted. In this case, aside from the trial court expressing a concern for the safety of the victim upon denying bond, there was no further discussion or determination that no conditions of release existed to protect her.

Based on these deficiencies, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted to the extent that the trial court upon remand shall either promptly set a reasonable bond or make the requisite findings in support of denial of bond.

PETITION GRANTED, REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

MONACO, TORPY and COHEN, J.J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                         461,023
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  445,096
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,511,460
<PP&E>                                         637,635
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,342,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,725,726
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,458,000
<COMMON>                                    12,928,233
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,342,482
<SALES>                                        611,861
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,174,258
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             780,009
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,906,671)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,906,671)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,906,671)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.113)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.113)


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Eye Institute Special Emphasis Panel; NIH Joint Neuroscience T32 Training Program.                    

*Date:*                         October 25, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road, NW., Washington, DC 20015.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anne E. Schaffner, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 9300, 301-451-2020,                         *aes@nei.nih.gov*.                    
      ( print page 58411)    
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 20, 2010.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-23979 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-41778

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BRIAN KEITH MILSAP

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:06-CR-16-1

Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Brian Keith Milsap has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Milsap has not filed a response. Our independent review

of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Aug. 30Published Aug. 30, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)**-- On this look around the Air Force, the enlisted remotely piloted aircraft program opens to all career fields, the Air Force is making the upgrade to Windows 10, and the Air Force officially welcomes its new vice chief of staff. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Traci Keller. 
For previous episodes, click here for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- AF opens enlisted RPA pilot program to all AFSCs
- Air Force officials welcome new vice chief of staff, honor Vietnam War vets
- Windows 10 to Deploy Across the Air ForceWindows 10 



RPA 



Global Hawk 



RQ-9 



AFSC 



enlisted pilots 



VCSAF 



ATAF
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 2000 (UNAUDITED) AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 (UNAUDITED)
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,099
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (940)
<INVENTORY>                                     20,862
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,902
<PP&E>                                          26,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,465)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,092
<BONDS>                                         13,851
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            59
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    62,653
<SALES>                                         36,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,420
<CGS>                                           24,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,112
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .19
<FN>
<F1>PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL ACCOUNTS AND INVENTORY PROVISION INCLUDED IN TOTAL
COSTS.
</FN>


</TABLE>