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

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000892158
<NAME> LAUREL CAPITAL GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             769
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           8,380
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     32,561
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,860
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            13,970
<LOANS>                                        146,135
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 216,781
<DEPOSITS>                                     171,488
<SHORT-TERM>                                       900
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,217
<LONG-TERM>                                     16,134
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 216,781
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,830
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,979
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   982
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,791
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,580
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,066
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,725
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       13
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 186
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,872
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,613
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,613
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,283
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.06
<LOANS-NON>                                        551
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,943
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      147
<RECOVERIES>                                        29
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,838
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,838
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Commonwealth of Kentucky *v.*Amos Bassett.

Recognizance — Forfeiture of.

A party having appeared in court, as required in a bond, and having been released on his own recignizance, his sureties on the bond were released from any obligation.

APPEAL FROM HOPKINS CIRCUIT COURT.

February 14, 1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Duvall :

the recognizance, to enforce the forfeiture of which tbis proceeding was instituted, bound the sureties for their principal’s *“*appearance ” on the second day of May term, 1864:. the order-book shows that be did appear on that day, and also that on bis agreement, still “ to stand on bis own recognizance,” the case was com tinued. And it neither appears nor should, therefore, be presumed that the sureties were present and agreed to be longer bound. Indeed the accepted agreement to stand on bis own recognizance imports that the court consented to waive its right to take him into custody or to require a new bond, and to trust to bis own single obligation to appear at the next term. Tbis entry, according to any allowable interpretation of it, released bis sureties in the recognizance in discharge of which be bad appeared.

. • Wherefore, as tbe appellant seems to have been thus discharged from liability, tbe judgment in bis favor, without technical regard to tbe form of the issue, should, in our opinion, be and, therefore, is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          106730
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1999900
<ALLOWANCES>                                    368000
<INVENTORY>                                    1884335
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4296275
<PP&E>                                         9029542
<DEPRECIATION>                               (5685402)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                12462857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9212953
<BONDS>                                        2182783
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 21,664,809      
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7134)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  12462857
<SALES>                                        3186910
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3186910
<CGS>                                          2084915
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1455932
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1208
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              158804
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (513948)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     10800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (503149)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (503149)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
#### Duane L. KNOPIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Exxonmobil Oil Corporation, Defendant-Cross Appellant, and Enecotech Midwest Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and Conocophillips Company, Sinclair Oil Corporation, Unocal Corporation, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., Dpra Incorporated, and Braun Intertec Corporation, Defendants. Duane L. Knopik, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, and Exxonmobil Oil Corporation, Defendant-Cross Appellee, and Braun Intertec Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Enecotech Midwest Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and Conocophillips Company, Sinclair Oil Corporation, Unocal Corporation, Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., and Dpra Incorporated, Defendants.

Nos. 03-1420, 03-1446, 03-1447.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Aug. 14, 2003.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Duane L. Knopik moves without opposition for a 30-day extension of time, until September 4, 2003, to file his brief in 03-1420, 03-1446.1 BP Products North America, Inc. moves without opposition to dismiss its appeal, 03-1447.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) Knopik’s motion for an extension of time in 03-1420, -1446 is granted.

*895(2) BP’s motion to dismiss 03-1447 is granted.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs in 03-1447.

(4) The revised official caption in 03-1420, -1446 is reflected above.

1

. Knopik's motion to dismiss ExxonMobil Oil Corporation's appeal, 03-1446, remains pending.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DAVID LEE PATTERSON.

July 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8175

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SHAWNSY DEVON MITCHELL,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief 

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00009-JRS-1)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawnsy Devon Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Colombell 

Marshall, Stephen Wiley Miller, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United 

States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shawnsy Devon Mitchell appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Because his appeal is moot, we 

dismiss the appeal.

Mitchell pleaded guilty in April 2003. He was 

sentenced to ninety months’ imprisonment and five years of 

supervised release. Mitchell served his active sentence and was 

released on November 18, 2009, while this appeal was in abeyance 

pending decision in another appeal. Because Mitchell has 

completed the confinement portion of his sentence, his argument 

that the district court abused its discretion in denying his 

motion for reduction of sentence is moot.*

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We deny 

Mitchell’s motion to appoint counsel. 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. 

DISMISSED

 * Our decision is without prejudice to any future motion 

Mitchell may file for early termination of supervised release 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) (2006).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          90,074
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,151,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                   142,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,699,337
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,277,679
<PP&E>                                       2,868,412
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,889,994
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,589,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,207,082
<BONDS>                                      1,807,067
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    28,707,838
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,817)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,589,157
<SALES>                                      5,948,709
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,948,709
<CGS>                                        4,105,463
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,510,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,516
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                265,351
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            276,351
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   276,351
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02


</TABLE>
#### H. & M. Craycraft *v.*A. L. Reid.

Writing — Mistake.

Where the execution of a writing is admitted, and the defendant relies on a mistake, the allegation of the answer stood controverted,- and. the affirmative was on him.

APPEAL PROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT.

October 5, 1866.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams:

The appellants sued appellee on a certificate of deposit for $1,800; he admitted the execution of the writing, but avers a mistake of $900 by the taking of a $100 bill for a $1,000 bill; by the provisions of the Civil Code the allegations of this answer stood controverted, and no reply was necessary.

The appellant must satisfy the jury and court of this alleged error, else judgment must be rendered against him, and such judgment would be inevitable without proof on the pleadings alone; he, therefore, had the affirmative, -and the court correctly so ruled.

We perceive no error in the other rulings of the court to appellants’ injury; the instructions were agreed and the evidence sustains the verdict; therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27900]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD


Extension of Time To Supplement Hearing Record

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

ACTION: Extension of time to supplement hearing record.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) published 
a document in the Federal Register of July 26, 2010, (75 FR 43495), as 
amended, (75 FR 56080), concerning notice of a public hearing and 
meeting on October 7 and 8, 2010, with regard to the safety-related 
aspects of the design and construction of the Department of Energy's 
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant at the Hanford Site. The Board 
stated in that notice that the Board would hold the hearing record open 
until November 7, 2010, for the receipt of additional materials. The 
Board made the same representation at the conclusion of the hearing on 
October 8, 2010.
    Extension of Time: The Board now extends the period of time for 
which the hearing record will remain open an additional sixty (60) days 
until January 6, 2011. The Board has become aware of information which 
indicates that the public interest will be best served by extending the 
deadline for submission of materials into the hearing record. The Board 
will consider any such additional material in the course of evaluating 
its response to information collected at the hearing.
    Contact Person for More Information: Brian Grosner, General 
Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, 
NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901, (800) 788-4016. This is a 
toll-free number.

    Dated: November 1, 2010.
Peter S. Winokur,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2010-27900 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paritosh K. Choksi, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Partnership.  Date: May 16, 2011/s/ Paritosh K. ChoksiParitosh K. Choksi Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC (General Partner)
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 74 FR 68630-68631, dated December 28, 2009) is amended to reflect the Order of Succession for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

*Section C-C, Order of Succession:*                     Delete in its entirety Section C-C, Order of Succession, and insert the following:                

During the absence or disability of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or in the event of a vacancy in that office, the first official listed below who is available shall act as Director, except that during a planned period of absence, the Director may specify a different order of succession:

1. Principal Deputy Director, CDC.

2. Deputy Director for Infectious Diseases.

3. Associate Director for Science.

4. Deputy Director for Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health.

Dated: January 28, 2010.

William P. Nichols,

Acting Chief Orating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

[FR Doc. 2010-2763 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-18-M
#### PASSAIC COUNTY PROSECUTOR BURRELL IVES HUMPHREYS v. PASSAIC COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS.

July 21, 1978,

Petition for certification is granted, and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court, Law Division, for further consideration in the light of c. 63, L. 1978 (A-110). Jurisdiction is not retained (See 159 *N. J. Super.*258).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10813

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

TRESHUN DEVONTE BATES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:19-CR-24-1

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Treshun Devonte Bates appeals his 71-month, within-guidelines 

sentence for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Bates contends 

that the district court’s application of the enhanced base offense level under 

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) was erroneous because his Texas conviction for 

assault of a public servant does not qualify as a crime of violence, given that 

the statute of conviction criminalizes reckless conduct and therefore lacks force 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 18, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10813 Document: 00515349855 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2020
No. 19-10813

2

as an element. The Government moves for summary affirmance, arguing that 

Bates’s argument is foreclosed by United States v. Rocha Flores, 921 F.3d 1133 

(5th Cir. 2019).

Bates correctly concedes that his argument is foreclosed, and he raises it 

only to preserve the issue for future review. See Rocha Flores, 921 F.3d at

1133; see also United States v. Reyes-Contreras, 910 F.3d 169, 183 (5th Cir. 

2018) (en banc) (considering former U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 

recognizing that the use-of-force requirement may include knowing or reckless 

conduct); United States v. Moore, 635 F.3d 774, 776 (5th Cir. 2011)

(interpreting guidelines provisions and statutes with similar language 

interchangeably). The Government is “clearly right as a matter of law” such 

that “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” 

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is 

DENIED.

 Case: 19-10813 Document: 00515349855 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2020
2 min read

# NASA Sets Coverage for Dragon Spacecraft Relocation on Space Station

### Lauren E. Low

Apr 29, 2024

MEDIA ADVISORYM24-059

Johnson Space Center

NASA Headquarters

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

In preparation for the arrival of NASA’s Boeing Crew Flight Test, four crew members aboard the International Space Station will relocate the SpaceX Dragon crew spacecraft to a different docking port Thursday, May 2, to make way for Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft.

NASA will provide live coverage of the move beginning at 7:30 a.m. EDT on NASA+, NASA Television, the NASA app, YouTube, and the agency’swebsite. Learn how to stream NASA TV through a variety of platforms including social media.

NASA astronauts Matt Dominick, Mike Barratt, and Jeanette Epps, as well as Roscosmos cosmonaut Alexander Grebenkin, will undock from the forward-facing port of the station’s Harmony module at 7:45 a.m. The spacecraft will then autonomously dock with the module’s space-facing port at 8:28 a.m.

The relocation, supported by flight controllers at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston and SpaceX in Hawthorne, California, will free up Harmony’s forward-facing port for the docking of the Boeing Starliner spacecraft for its first flight with astronauts in May. Starliner will autonomously dock to the forward-facing port of the Harmony module, delivering NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to the space station.

This will be the fourth port relocation of a Dragon spacecraft with crew, following previous relocations during the Crew-1, Crew-2, and Crew-6 missions.

NASA’s SpaceX Crew-8 mission launched March 3 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida and docked to the space station March 5. Crew-8, targeted to return this fall, is the eighth rotational crew mission from NASA and SpaceX as a part of the agency’s Commercial Crew Program.

Learn more about space station activities by following @space_station and @ISS_Research on X, as well as the ISS Facebook, ISS Instagram, and the space station blog.

-end-

Joshua Finch / Claire O’SheaHeadquarters, Washington202-358-1100joshua.a.finch@nasa.gov / claire.a.o’shea@nasa.gov

Sandra Jones / Anna SchneiderJohnson Space Center, Houston281-483-5111sandra.p.jones@nasa.gov / anna.c.schneider@nasa.gov

## Share

                  -   
                  -   
                  -   
                  -   

## Details

Johnson Space Center

## Related Terms

                - Humans in Space
                - Astronauts
                - Commercial Crew
                - International Space Station (ISS)
                - ISS Research