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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          37,321
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  107,549
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    153,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               394,408
<PP&E>                                         731,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                 331,109
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,046,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          226,285
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           284
<OTHER-SE>                                     469,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,046,945
<SALES>                                        501,561
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               501,561
<CGS>                                          397,964
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  397,964
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,597
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,480
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,980
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,980
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.73


</TABLE>
Motion granted and Abatement Order filed March 22, 2022

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00344-CV

CHRISTOPHER DANIEL CORNAY, Appellant

V.

LAUREN ELIZABETH CORNAY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 280th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-29054

ABATEMENT ORDER

On February 16, 2022, appellant filed what is styled as a motion to dismiss

but essentially requests the court to abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the 

trial court to effectuate the parties’ agreement to compromise and settle their dispute. 

Consistent with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2)(C), the motion is 

accompanied by an agreement signed by the parties, as well as their attorneys. 

Construing the motion as a request to abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the 

trial court to effectuate the parties’ agreement, the court hereby GRANTS the 
2

motion. The parties are instructed to have a supplemental clerk’s record filed in this 

Court within 10 days of any action taken in the trial court showing the action taken 

regarding effectuating the parties’ agreement.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket for ninety days from the date of this order. The appeal will be reinstated 

on this court’s active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to dismiss 

the appeal or other dispositive motion. The court will also consider an appropriate 

motion to reinstate the appeal filed by any party, or the court may reinstate the appeal 

on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Phillips Gas Company as of March 31, 1997,
and the related consolidated statement of income for the three-month period
ended March 31, 1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          84,297
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  151,292
<ALLOWANCES>                                       626
<INVENTORY>                                      5,281
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               247,549
<PP&E>                                       2,019,190
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,088,698
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,221,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          248,359
<BONDS>                                        310,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    345,000
<COMMON>                                       142,917
<OTHER-SE>                                     148,579
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,221,700
<SALES>                                        450,166
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               469,681
<CGS>                                          420,211<F1>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  420,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,698
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,156
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,771
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,385
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,385
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Gas purchases + Operating expenses + Depreciation.
<F2>Income per share of common stock has been omitted because all common
    stock is owned by Phillips Petroleum Company.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of Pediatric Services of America, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James M. McNeill, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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.



/s/ JAMES M. MCNEILLJames M. McNeill Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




Date: February 9, 2006
## ,:. b. ~5 pQ - . . .. . . . . ~4. ,: OFFICE OF THE All-ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN **GROVER SELLERS** 

**‘ ATTORNEY-GENERAL** 

## s&i. c. D. s-, Peg0 2

### 369

,; Hon. C. D. SFrmwna, Pega 3 :',BM.C.D. Slmnom. Page 8

aj m8ting thbt th0 

## m8g0ias iu3sj enw0rs yew I’ znqery;.ws era.
#### MUSCATELL v. MUSCATELL

No. 428P01

Case below: 145 N.C. App. 198

Petition by defendant (Rande J. Muscatell) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>6
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE FORM 10-Q AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>           3,346,009
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>          4,330,118
<RECEIVABLES>                           0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                      2,459
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                  276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  4,332,853
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                 0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>         168,127
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>               168,127
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                         0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>        3,180,617
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>              79,716
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>              79,716
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>               0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                  0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                 0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>          984,109
<NET-ASSETS>                    4,164,726
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                   7,966
<INTEREST-INCOME>                       0
<OTHER-INCOME>                          0
<EXPENSES-NET>                    266,304
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>          (258,338)
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>             (768)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>      (1,195,320)
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>          (1,454,426)
<EQUALIZATION>                          0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>               0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                   0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                 0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>             0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                     0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>         (1,454,426)
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>               0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                 0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>              0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>              79,298
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                   267,754
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>            4,891,939
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>               70.46
<PER-SHARE-NII>                    (18.06)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                 0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                    0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>               0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                    0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                 52.40
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                       5.4

</TABLE>
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2149

To provide customs services after hours at certain airports. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 1, 2004

Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. BAUCUS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To provide customs services after hours at certain airports.

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

3 SECTION 1. CUSTOMS SERVICES. 

4 Section 13031(e)(1) of the Consolidated Omnibus 

5 Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(e)(1)) 

6 is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘(1) Notwithstanding section 

8 451 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1451) or 

9 any other provision of law (other than paragraph 

10 (2)),’’ and inserting: 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—
2

•S 2149 IS 

1 ‘‘(A) SCHEDULED FLIGHTS.—Notwith2 standing section 451 of the Tariff Act of 1930 

3 (19 U.S.C. 1451) or any other provision of law 

4 (other than subparagraph (B) and paragraph 

5 (2)),’’; and 

6 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(B) AFTER HOURS SERVICE.—If an air 

8 carrier (as defined in section 40102(2) of title 

9 49, United States Code) specifically requests 

10 that customs services for passengers and their 

11 baggage be provided after normal operating 

12 hours at a customs serviced airport and over13 time funds for those services are not available, 

14 the appropriate customs officer shall assign suf15 ficient customs employees (if available) to per16 form any such services, which could lawfully be 

17 performed during regular hours of operation, 

18 and any overtime fees incurred in connection 

19 with such service shall be paid by the air car20 rier.’’.

Æ
ADLER PLANETARIUM, THE

Climate Change and Me: Engaging young people 

with NASA Data, Missions, and Careers through 

Immersive Visualizations, Planetarium Programs, 

and Virtual Experiences

Laura Trouille

9/15/22 - 9/14/25

A novel and learning-research based approach to 

providing in-person and virtual field trip experiences, 

engaging diverse 5th-8th grade students in NASA 

climate change principles, missions, and data 

visualizations, as well as the process of science and

STEM careers. The effort builds a strategic partnership 

between the Adler Planetarium, NASA’s Scientific 

Visualization Studio, the NASA Museum and Informal 

Education Alliance, and the International Planetarium 

Society. Virtual and in-person field trip experiences, 

with accompanying pre- and post-activities, will be 

designed and implemented at the Adler Planetarium 

and through partnerships with the NASA Goddard 

Visitor Center, the Chicago Botanic Garden, the 

Chicago, Baltimore, and D.C. School Districts. The 

project will also disseminate the visualizations and 

accompanying facilitation guides to the broader 

museum, planetarium, and informal science education 

community.

List of Partners:

• NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

• Chicago Botanic Garden

• International Planetarium Society

• Chicago, Baltimore, and DC Public School 

The Adler Planetarium

Credits: The Adler Planetarium

The material contained in this document is based upon 

work supported by a NASA grant or cooperative 

agreement award #80NSSC22M0165, under the Teams 

Engaging Affiliated Museums and Informal Institutions 

(TEAM II) activity of NASA’s Next Gen STEM Project.

Explore TEAM II Products 

https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/search/

www.nasa.gov
#### SHAW REALTY COMPANY v. RENT CONTROL BOARD AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PATERSON.

June 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alex Arrington, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 877]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), entered November 6, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 Vs to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

During jury selection, after conducting a suitable inquiry into a sworn juror’s availability, the court properly exercised its discretion in discharging the juror on the ground that he was unavailable or unable to continue to serve due to illness *(see*CPL 270.15 [3]; *People v Page,*72 NY2d 69 [1988]). The duration of the juror’s expected absence was uncertain *(see People v Graves,*243 AD2d 275 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 834 [1997]) and the court properly took into account the inconvenience that an indefinite delay would cause to jurors and witnesses *(see People v Robustelli,*189 AD2d 668 [1993], *lv denied*81 NY2d 975 [1993]). We also note that the court granted defendant an additional peremptory challenge.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Friedman, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson,. JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27839]


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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Reissuance

    Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation 
Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to 
the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               License No.                          Name/address                       Date reissued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
002213NF................................  Staudt International Services    September 16, 2010.
                                           Corp., 1028 E. 14th Street,
                                           Los Angeles, CA 90021.
018309N.................................  Gunter Shipping, Inc., 1565      September 17, 2010.
                                           Bergen Street, Brooklyn, NY
                                           11213.
020934N.................................  D.L. International Logistics     August 23, 2010.
                                           Inc., 2020 NW. 129th Avenue,
                                           <greek-i>208, Miami, FL 33182.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sandra L. Kusumoto,
Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.
[FR Doc. 2010-27839 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
#### John Cotter, Respondent, v Summit Security Services, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[788 NYS2d 153]

In an action to recover damages for. assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, and negligent hiring, retention, and training, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.), dated January 5, 2004, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the causes of action alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution by tendering evidence that they did not affirmatively induce a police officer to act *(see Wasilewicz v Village of Monroe Police Dept.,*3 AD3d 561 [2004]; *Cobb v Willis,*208 AD2d 1155, 1156 [1994]), but merely supplied information to the police, who determined that an arrest was appropriate *(see DeFilippo v County of Nassau,*183 AD2d 695 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action to recover damages for false arrest and false imprisonment *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]; *Perez v Charter One FSB,*298 AD2d 447 [2002]).

“To sustain a cause of action to recover damages for assault, there must be proof of physical conduct placing the plaintiff in imminent apprehension of harmful contact” *(Bastein v Sotto,*299 AD2d 432, 433 [2002]). To recover damages for battery a plaintiff must prove that there was bodily contact, made with intent, and offensive in nature *(see Siegell v Herricks Union Free School Dist.,*7 AD3d 607, 609 [2004]; *Bastein v Sotto,*
      *476
      *supra).*The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law as to the causes of action alleging assault and battery and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Zuckerman v City of New York, supra*at 557).

Since all other causes of action asserted in the complaint should have been dismissed, the remaining cause of action alleging negligent hiring and training also should have been dismissed as there was no evidence that the defendant Marino Munoz, who was employed by the defendant Summit Security Services, Inc., committed the torts upon which the remaining cause of action was based *(cf. U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v Val-Blue Corp.,*85 NY2d 821, 823 [1995]; *Karoon v New York City Tr. Auth.,*241 AD2d 323, 324 [1997]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.1





Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, the undersigned officer of Sandston Corporation (the
"Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Daniel J. DormanName:
                Daniel
      J. DormanTitle:
                President,
      Chief Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)Date:
                May
      13, 2010





The
foregoing certification (i) accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, (ii) will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the
liability of that section, and (iii) will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it
by reference.





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 Sandston Corporation and will be retained
by Sandston Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Mack, Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 397]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered April 22, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him because a detective testified that he arrested the defendant after a conversation with his accomplice, who did not testify at trial. Although the defendant objected to that testimony and moved for a mistrial, he did not specify the ground now raised on appeal and failed to object to the court’s remedy. Therefore, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Fleming,*70 NY2d 947 [1988]; *People v Perez,*9 AD3d 376, 377 [2004]; *People v Moreno,*303 AD2d 424 [2003]; *People v Hughes,*251 AD2d 513 [1998]).

*518In any event, although the challenged testimony was improper, since it implied that the accomplice implicated the defendant in the crime *(see People v Latta,*295 AD2d 449 [2002]), the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230 [1975]; *People v Latta, supra).*Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.