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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          23,658                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   57,593                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,605                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                75,182                       0
<PP&E>                                          42,062                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,706                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,714                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,017                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            67                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,558                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,714                       0
<SALES>                                         95,505                 111,611
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                95,505                 111,611
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,114                 126,390
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,292                  10,510
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,902                   6,964
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,576)                (32,086)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                  (1,659)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,576)                (30,427)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  24,314                   1,735
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,738                 (28,692)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.67                   (4.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.67                   (4.31)


</TABLE>
#### JULIE A. HUNTING v. STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 23.1

Securities and Exchange Commission

Washington, DC

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference
in the registration statements of ICOP Digital, Inc. on Forms S-8 (Nos. 333-121219, 333-131038 and 33-131036) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-130856) of our report dated March 23, 2006 appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
for the year ended December 31, 2005.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|                             
|/s/ Cordovano and Honeck, LLP
|Denver, Colorado             
|March 24, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 220 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 220

 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
          of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 28, 2003

Mr. Fitzgerald introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction 
          of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT.

    Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 11214, the 
Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the project, and 
after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due 
diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and the 
Commission's procedures under that section--
            (1) reinstate the license for the construction of the 
        project as of the effective date of the surrender of the 
        license; and
            (2) extend the time period during which the licensee is 
        required to commence the construction of the project for 3 
        consecutive 2-year periods beyond the date that is 4 years 
        after the date of issuance of the license.
                                 <all>
```
T.C. Memo. 1997-222

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

THOMAS E. AND IRIS M. TILLEY, Petitioners v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 2594-96. Filed May 12, 1997.

Thomas E. Tilley and Iris M. Tilley, pro sese.

James R. Rich, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

FOLEY, Judge: By notice of deficiency dated November 14,

1995, respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal

income taxes and accuracy-related penalties as follows:

 Penalty

Year Deficiency Sec. 6662(a)

1991 $7,739 $1,548
- 2 -

1992 62,976 12,595

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the

Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all

Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and

Procedure.

The issues for decision are as follows:

1. Whether petitioners are liable for the deficiencies

determined by respondent. We hold that petitioners are liable.

2. Whether petitioners, pursuant to section 6662(a), are

liable for accuracy-related penalties. We hold that petitioners

are liable.

3. Whether a penalty, pursuant to section 6673, should be

imposed upon petitioners. We do not impose a penalty.

At the time the petition was filed, petitioners resided in

Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Petitioners filed, in a timely manner, joint Federal income

tax returns for 1991 and 1992. On the returns, petitioners

reported, among other items, the following: (1) A depreciation

deduction of $2,200 for 1991; (2) a capital loss of $5,056 for

1991; and (3) bad debt deductions of $36,000 for 1991 and

$224,963 for 1992. Respondent disallowed these items and

increased petitioners' taxable income by $41,056 for 1991 and

$224,963 for 1992. Respondent further determined that

petitioners were subject to accuracy-related penalties for

negligence. Petitioners filed their petition on February 12,
- 3 -

1996. On December 6, 1996, the Court filed respondent's Motion

for Claim for Damages Under I.R.C. § 6673, contending that

petitioners' position in the case was frivolous or groundless.

Taxpayers bear the burden of proving that respondent's

determinations of deficiencies and penalties are erroneous. Rule

142(a). Petitioners have introduced no evidence to support their

entitlement to the deductions they claimed. While Mr. Tilley

testified that he had relied on an accountant to ensure that the

returns were correct, petitioners introduced no evidence to

establish that such reliance was reasonable. See sec. 6664(c);

sec. 1.6664-4(b), Income Tax Regs. As a result, we conclude that

petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proof, and they

are liable for the deficiencies and accuracy-related penalties as

determined by respondent.

Respondent filed a motion for the imposition of a penalty

under section 6673(a)(1). We conclude that such a penalty is

inappropriate in the present case and deny respondent's motion.

To reflect the foregoing,

An appropriate order and

decision will be entered.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, John G. Murchie, Chief Financial Officer of OurPet’s Company, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of OurPet’sCompany. 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual reportdoes 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 coveredby this annual report; 

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 inthis annual report; 

 

4.    The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-15e) for the registrant and we 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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)    disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter ( the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

5.    The registrant’sother certifying officer 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 personsperforming 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.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 1388

FATOUMA KITETE

,

Petitioner

,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

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

.

Submitted : July 17, 2019 Decided: August 14, 2019

Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Fatouma Kitete, Petitioner Pro Se. Carmel A. Morgan, Tim Ramnitz, Office of

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,

D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Fatouma Kite te, a native of Egypt and a citizen of Zaire (now the Democratic

Republic of the Congo), petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. We lack

jurisdiction to revi ew how the agency exercises its sua sponte discretion. See Lawrence v.

Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206 (4th Cir. 2016) ; Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397, 400

- 01 (4th

Cir. 2009) . Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We dispense with oral

argument bec ause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           25800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   153300
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (4300)
<INVENTORY>                                     145800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                332300
<PP&E>                                          859100
<DEPRECIATION>                                (148900)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1748100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           371700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              300
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      168600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1748100
<SALES>                                         413900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                413900
<CGS>                                           341800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   341800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 22200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               24200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  25700
<INCOME-TAX>                                     10800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              14700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     14700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
        

</TABLE>
NASA Advisory Council Recommendation

Promotional Activities
2018-03-05 (RPC-05)

Recommendation:

The Council recommends that NASA examine the possible public benefits and any risks of space-
based promotional activities on rockets, spacecraft, hardware, and/or modules, taking into account
historical insights.

Major Reasons for the Recommendation:

NASA has an extraordinarily powerful brand and could leverage promotional activities to help
inspire youth to pursue careers in STEM. Moreover, by engaging in promotional activities, NASA
can leverage its ‘soft power’ to support U.S. interests and core values.

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:

If NASA does not review its policies a substantial opportunity could be lost to leverage NASA’s
globally recognized brand to inspire youth to pursue careers in STEM and leverage the Agency’s soft
power influence to benefit U.S. interests and humanitarian goals.

NASA Response:

NASA concurs with the recommendation. This recommendation is directly in line with the
Administration priorities for the Agency to appropriately leverage its great reputation to inspire youth
to pursue careers in STEM and to support the Nation’s burgeoning commercial space sector. NASA
is currently exploring promotional activities to include proposing any necessary legislation to support
them. NASA will keep the NASA Advisory Council informed of its activities as it moves forward on
this recommendation.

Enclosure
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN LEE ELLIOTT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-55283

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00743-DMGMRW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 20, 2016** 

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Jonathan Lee Elliott appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his diversity action alleging state law claims arising from his use of a

prescription medication. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

FILED

JAN 28 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
de novo. Tucker v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 158 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir. 1998). 

We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the basis that

Elliott’s action was time-barred because Elliott filed his action more than two years

after his claims accrued and he failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as

to whether he was entitled to delayed accrual. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1

(two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Slovensky v. Friedman,

49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 60, 68 (Ct. App. 2006), as modified on denial of reh’g (setting

forth California law regarding delayed accrual of the statute of limitations).

We reject as unsupported Elliott’s contention that he was entitled to statutory

tolling.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

(per curiam).

All pending requests and motions are denied. 

AFFIRMED.

2 14-55283
---

---

Exhibit 10.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(Commission File Number 333-13818, Commission File Number 333-114668 and Commission File
Number 333-135218) pertaining to the Radware Ltd. 1997 Key Employee Share Incentive Plan,
of our report dated March 24, 2009, with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements
of Radware Ltd. and its subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of Radware Ltd. and its subsidiaries, included in its Annual Report
(Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2008.

|                   |                                 
|------------------ | --------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|                   | /s/ Kost Forer Gabbay & Kasierer
|Tel - Aviv, Israel | KOST FORER GABBAY & KASIERER    
|March 24, 2009     | A Member of Ernst & Young Global



---

---
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 24, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-15696

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-20304-CV-PAS

JACOB ALKOV, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

 (May 24 ,2006)

Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Upon de novo review of the record in this case, we affirm the district court's

dismissal of Jacob Alkov's complaint that Defendant's rejection of certain

applications submitted under the City's Nonprofit Vending Ordinance ("the

Ordinance"), Miami Beach City Code § 86-143, violated the federal Equal
 As the district court correctly noted, "Nowhere has Plaintiff alleged that he is a 1

nonprofit organization within the meaning of the Ordinance. Plaintiff does not assert that he has

an interest in distributing books, literature, and message-bearing merchandise in furtherance of

promoting his nonprofit organization or that he intended personally to make use of the denied

permits."

2

Protection Clause. The court properly found that Alkov lacks standing to bring

suit under the Ordinance, which creates rights in non-profit organizations only.

Alkov, a self-described vendor and independent contractor, clearly does not fit that

description, and he offers no reason why his should be one of those "exceptional 1

cases where plaintiffs are permitted to raise the rights of others." Wolff v. Cash 4

Tiles, 351 F.3d 1348, 1357 (11th Cir. 2003). On appeal, Alkov attempts to escape

this conclusion by arguing that the Ordinance applies to commercial vendors like

himself as well as to non-profit organizations. This reading manifestly contradicts

the Ordinance’s unambiguous language and express intent. See Miami Beach

City Code § 86-141 and accompanying section on "Applicability of [the] Article.” 

Finally, we agree with the district court that Alkov still would lack standing even if

the ordinance applied to commercial vendors, because the only applications whose

rejection he contests were submitted on behalf of non-profit organizations. 

AFFIRMED.
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS



### UNITED STATES ) No. ACM

_________

Appellee ) )

v. ) ) ORDER Anthony J. BIANCHI ) Airman First Class (E

- 3) )

U.S. Air Force )

Appellant ) Panel 1

On 25 July 2024

, Appellant submitted a Motion to Withdraw from Appellant Review and Motion to Attach. Specifically, Appellant moved to attach a
DD Form 2330, Waiver/Withdrawal of Appellate Rights in General and Special

Courts

- Martial Subject to Review by a Court of Criminal Appeals , signed by Appellant and Appellant’s counsel on 23 July 2024

. The Government did not
submit any opposition.

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 30th day of July 202 4

,

ORDERED:

Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw from Appellate Review and Motion to Attach are GRANTED. Appellant’s case is forwarded to the Appellate Records Branch (JAJM) for further processing in accordance with Rules for Courts

Martial 1115(f)(3) and 1201, Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (20 24 ed.).

It is further ordered:

All previous orders by this court relating to Appellant’s case are rescinded.

FOR THE COURT

OLGA STANFORD, Capt, USAF

Commissioner
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2230

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to include shifts in production, for purposes 

of trade adjustment assistance, to countries to which the United States 

has extended permanent normal trade relations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 24, 2004

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend the Trade Act of 1974 to include shifts in production, for purposes of trade adjustment assistance, to 

countries to which the United States has extended permanent normal trade relations.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Workers Equity Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. SHIFTS IN PRODUCTION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 222(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) of 

7 the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II)) 

8 is amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: 
2

•S 2230 IS 

1 ‘‘or a country to which the United States has extended 

2 permanent normal trade relations’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 this section shall take effect on October 1, 2004.

Æ