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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-01-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          499,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,966,600
<OTHER-SE>                                (22,616,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (44,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (45,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (45,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
{"agency":"MSPB","generated":"2021-01-28 17:37:21","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2021"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["MSPB"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["30"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["26"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["52"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2021","quarter":"Q1"}
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1652

To ratify the do-not-call registry provision of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 

as amended by the Federal Trade Commission, effective March 31, 2003. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2003

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. 

SCHUMER, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, 

Mr. VOINOVICH, and Mr. PRYOR) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation 

A BILL

To ratify the do-not-call registry provision of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, as amended by the Federal Trade 

Commission, effective March 31, 2003.

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL DO-NOT-CALL REGISTRY. 

4 (a) FINDING.—Congress finds that the Federal 

5 Trade Commission was authorized under section 

6 3(a)(3)(A) of the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and 

7 Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102(a)(3)(A)) to com8 pile and implement a national do-not-call registry. 
2

•S 1652 IS 

1 (b) RATIFICATION.—The do-not-call registry provi2 sion of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (16 CFR 

3 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B)), which was promulgated by the Fed4 eral Trade Commission, effective March 31, 2003, is rati5 fied.

Æ
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 364 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the need 

to eliminate partisan redistricting and gerrymandering. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 25, 2017 

Mr. NOLAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the need to eliminate partisan redistricting and gerrymandering. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. ELIMINATING PARTISAN REDISTRICTING AND 

3 GERRYMANDERING. 

4 It is the sense of the House of Representatives that— 

5 (1) Congress should establish a Federal re6 apportionment system that would create compact 

7 and contiguous congressional districts that, to the 

8 greatest extent possible, follow geographic bound9 aries and county lines; 


lotter on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 364 IH 

1 (2) congressional districts should not favor or 

2 disfavor an incumbent or political party; 

3 (3) congressional districts should adhere to the 

4 existing standards of equal population; and 

5 (4) the highest court of each State should have 

6 the power to reject congressional district maps that 

7 do not meet the above criteria. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK30NT082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                            EXHIBIT 11
                                 
                                 
                  HAGGAR CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                 
            COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
         (UNAUDITED, IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                 
<TABLE>                                                            
                                                            
                                                  Three Months Ended            Nine Months Ended
                                                       June 30,                     June 30,
                                               ----------------------        ----------------------
                                                 1997           1996          1997            1996
                                               -------         ------        ------           -----
<S>                                            <C>             <C>           <C>              <C>
Net income (loss)  to common stockholders      $(1,926)        $1,082        $ (103)          3,670
                                               -------         ------        ------           -----
Weighted average common shares and common
  share equivalents outstanding                  8,552          8,552         8,552           8,552
                                               -------         ------        ------           -----

Net income (loss) per common share and common 
  share equivalents                             ($0.23)         $0.13        ($0.01)          $0.43
                                               -------         ------        ------           -----
                                               -------         ------        ------           -----
Computation of weighted average common shares
  and common share equivalents outstanding:

Weighted average common shares outstanding       8,551          8,551         8,551           8,551

Shares equivalents, due to stock options             1              1             1               1
                                               -------         ------        ------           -----
                                                 8,552          8,552         8,552           8,552
                                               -------         ------        ------           -----
                                               -------         ------        ------           -----

</TABLE>



                                      14
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 10, 2015. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 10, 2015 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A15D0406. FLAMENE WILKINS v. THEODORE SKEETE et al.. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 14A53096
Here's how you know.
 **The .gov means it’s official.**Federal government websites always use a .gov or .mil domain. Before sharing sensitive information online, make sure you’re on a .gov or .mil site by inspecting your browser’s address (or “location”) bar.
 This site is also protected by an SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) certificate that’s been signed by the U.S. government. The https:// means all transmitted data is encrypted  — in other words, any information or browsing history that you provide is transmitted securely.
 National Agricultural LibraryU.S. Department of Agriculture
      

      Secondary Links
          Ask a Question
            Contact Us
            Visit the Library Show Menu
 Home
    About
    Browse Exhibits
    All Items
    Canning Timeline
    Resources
 How Did We Can?
 About How Did We Can? In comparison to drying, curing, pickling, salting, cold storage, and freezing, canning is a relatively new method of food preservation. During canning, food is preserved through heat processing and storage in sealed airtight containers. This process was developed by Nicolas Appert of France during the Napoleonic Wars. In 1795, Napoleon’s government offered an award of 12,000 francs for the invention of a food preservation method suitable for sustaining large quantities of French troops both on land and at sea. Appert won the award in 1809 (VanGarde & Margy Woodburn, 1994).  Read more...
 Featured Items *Can All You Can: It's a Real War Job!*


*Fruits and Vegetables: Don't Let Good Food Spoil*


*Preserve*


*Can Vegetables, Fruit and the Kaiser Too*

*Win The Next War Now*

*Don't*
 The Exhibits jar being lowered into cooking potCanning Techniques images of swollen and broken cansConsequences of Improper Canning women with canning equipmentEvolution of Canning Equipment poster of World War I canning practicesCanning Through the World Wars jars of canned foodHome Canning: Post World War II to Present
 Government Links
            Policies and Links
              Plain Writing
              FOIA
              Accessibility Statement
              Privacy Policy
              Non-Discrimination Statement
              Civil Rights Policy 
              Information Quality
              National Agricultural Library
              Agricultural Research Service
              USDA.gov
              USA.gov
              WhiteHouse.govSign up for ARS News updates
              Your email address
# Earth’s Atmospheric Glow

This high exposure photograph revealed Earth's atmospheric glow against the backdrop of a starry sky in this image taken from the International Space Station on Jan. 21, 2024. At the time, the orbital lab was 258 miles above the Pacific Ocean northeast of Papua New Guinea. The Nauka science module and Prichal docking module are visible at left.

Read More

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/iss070e076676/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenJanuary 21, 2024Image CreditNASA, ESA/Andreas MogensenSize5568x3712pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Jan 30, 2024								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
****

 

### Erik van Meijgaarden

In December 1972, when I was six years old, my mother took me home from school and installed me in front of the television, telling me "Better watch this; you won't have a chance of seeing this again for a long time". How prophetic those words were! Later I realized that I had been watching the unloading of the Lunar Rover on the Apollo 17 mission. 

Since then, I have had a fascination for manned spaceflight in general and the Apollo program in particular. Living in the Netherlands, one gets little opportunity to maintain such an interest other than through books and - later - video. The fascination slipped into hibernation as the years passed, but in 1987 I had a chance to visit Johnson Space Centre. Seeing the relics of a time when everything seemed to have a higher purpose made me aware that, although I have a healthy spectrum of interests, Apollo still holds that special place.

Today, as I work on various projects, I get an ever-increasing admiration for the immense and complex tasks accomplished by the men and women working on Apollo. Technology, organization, management, it's all pretty hard to imagine how it all could be done in a few years.

Meanwhile my sons reveal themselves almost as much a space enthusiast as you can expect from a couple of schoolboys, and, together with them, I'm enjoying and rediscovering the glorious pioneer years of early spaceflight.

The Apollo Lunar Surface Journals and Flight Journals are the perfect key to unlock much of the fragmented knowledge I gained over the years. It's fascinating to see that the combination of images, audio, video, reports and documents in a way that the pieces of the puzzle all come together, everything starts to make sense and can be shared and enjoyed thoroughly. I'm very proud that I can make a contribution.

October 2006
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32


                            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 Medina International Holdings, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-K (the  "Report") for the period ending April 30,
2009 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report").  I, Madhava Rao Mankal,  Chief Financial Officer of the company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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.


                                 /s/ Madhava Rao Mankal
                                    --------------------------------
                                   Madhava Rao Mankal,  Chief Financial Officer
Date: October 19, 2009
EXHIBIT 31





CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jehu Hand, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Maritime Partners, Ltd.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) for the registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and



c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;



5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



Date: March 31, 2006



/s/ Jehu Hand

Jehu Hand

President (chief executive officer) and Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RUBEN RAY CONTRERAS,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00116-CR

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20180D00522)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ruben Contreras appeals from a conviction for theft which was enhanced by two prior theft 

convictions. A jury found Contreras guilty and assessed his punishment at confinement in the state 

jail for two years. We affirm.

FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support 

of the motion in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. 

The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 

493 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, 

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 
2

(Tex.Crim.App. 2008)("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points 

of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural 

history and set out pertinent legal authorities."); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 

1978). Counsel has notified the Court in writing that he has delivered a copy of counsel's brief, 

the motion to withdraw, and a copy of the clerk's and reporter's records to Appellant, and he has 

advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief, and of his right to seek 

discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318-20 

(Tex.Crim.App. 2014)(setting forth duties of counsel). In addition, Counsel also stated that he 

provided Appellant with a motion requesting access to the appellate record in compliance with 

Kelly, however, as noted above Appellant was provided a copy of the appellate record by his 

attorney. Appellant has not filed a pro se brief.

After carefully reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we find nothing that might 

arguably support the appeal, and accordingly, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and 

without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). The 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

October 25, 2019

TOM GRAY

Before Rodriguez, J., Palafox, J., and Gray, C.J.

Gray, C.J. (Sitting by Assignment)

(Do Not Publish)
EXHIBIT 32.2



                          SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                  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 Form 10-KSB of Auteo Media,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael W. Kinley,
President and Director 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
based on my knowledge:

     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.


Date:  May 12, 2004


/s/ MICHAEL W. KINLEY
______________________________________
Michael W. Kinley
President and Director




A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE  ELECTRONIC  VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION  906,  HAS BEEN  PROVIDED TO AUTEO  MEDIA,  INC. AND WILL BE
RETAINED BY AUTEO MEDIA,  INC.  AND  FURNISHED  TO THE  SECURITIES  AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.