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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF CASH
FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      13,485,000
<SECURITIES>                                11,130,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,342,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (500,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 11,352,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            61,762,000
<PP&E>                                      14,265,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,941,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             100,831,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,126,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  66,531,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,831,000
<SALES>                                     94,601,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            94,601,000
<CGS>                                       51,813,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,815,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,325,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             11,346,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,449,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,897,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,897,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .393
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .375
        

</TABLE>
H. Res. 564

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 2, 1998.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4274) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,

and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1999, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to

the bill and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the

bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute

rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure

to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except

as follows: beginning with ‘‘: Provided’’ on page 41, line 9,

through line 19; page 95, line 18, through page 109, line 19.

Where points of order are waived against part of a para-
2

•HRES 564 EH

graph, points of order against a provision in another part of

such paragraph may be made only against such provision and

not against the entire paragraph. The amendments printed in

the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution may be offered only by a Member designated in the

report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the

bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the

time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by

the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to

amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not

be subject to a demand for division of the question in the

House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order

against the amendments printed in the report are waived.

During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in

recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an

amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the

Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6

of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as

read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)

postpone until a time during further consideration in the

Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any

amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum

time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business,
3

•HRES 564 EH

provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the

first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the

conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel are you 

a Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this &ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this &ourt’s

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 8.6.&§1746, this

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

&RPPRGLW\)XWXUHV7UDGLQJ

&RPPLVVLRQY/RQJ/HDI7UDGLQJHWDO

1:20-cv-03758

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Elizabeth M. Streit

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

525 W. Monroe St., Ste. 1100

Chicago, IL 60661

06188119 312-596-0537

estreit@cftc.gov

6/26/2020

✔

✔

✔

✔

Elizabeth M. Streit

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 4 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:37
#### AUTRY v. MANGUM

No. 257P97

Case below: 126 N.C.App. 223

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 July 1997.
August 21, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ANTONIO LUIS GARCIA , Appellant
NO. 14

- 11

- 00533

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
##### 



Exhibit 15.1

November 5, 2003

Vornado Operating Company
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Vornado Operating Company for the periods ended September 30,
2003 and 2002, as indicated in our report dated November 5, 2003; because we
did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-68458 on Form S-8
and Registration Statement No. 333-77143 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1349

___________________________

Rudy Ronaldo Martinez-Diaz

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: December 22, 2016

Filed: December 28, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Rudy Ronaldo Martinez-Diaz petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision
of an immigration judge (IJ) denying him withholding of removal. After careful

1

consideration, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision. See De

Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713 F.3d 375, 379-82 (8th Cir. 2013). The petition for

review is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The IJ also denied asylum and protection under the Convention Against 1

Torture, but those rulings are not before this court. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft,

367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004).

-2-
.

Report out from NASEM Assessment of the 

Material Measurement Laboratory and the 

Engineering Laboratory 

National Academies 

Committee on NIST Technical Programs

June 8, 2021
Reviews in FY 20
.

Panel on Review of the 

Material Measurement Laboratory at the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology

Elsa Reichmanis, Ph.D., chair
Panel ‘visited’ MML September 9-11, 2020

STEPHANIE L. BROCK, Wayne State University

DENNIS E. DISCHER, NAM, NAE, University of 

Pennsylvania

THOMAS W. EAGAR, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology

ROBERT E. FONTANA, NAE, Jr., IBM Systems 

ERIC E. FULLERTON, NAE, University of California, 

San Diego

AMIT GOYAL, NAE, SUNY Buffalo

OLIVIA A. GRAEVE, University of California, San Diego

JENNIE C. HUNTER-CEVERA, Hunter-Cevera and 

Associates

CARL KESSELMAN, University of Southern California

DAE WOOK KIM, University of Arizona

MUKUL KUMAR, Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory

MICHAEL R. LADISCH, NAE, Purdue University

STEVEN H. MCKNIGHT, Virginia Polytechnic and State 

University

PHILLIP M. NECHES, NAE, Entrepreneurs Roundtable 

Accelerator

KRISHNA RAJAN, State University of New York at Buffalo

ELSA REICHMANIS, NAE, Lehigh University

ANN BEAL SALAMONE, NAE, Rochal Industries, LLC

WENDY J. SHAW, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

SUBHASH SINGHAL, NAE, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (Ret.)

MICHAEL G. SPENCER, Morgan State University

KATHLEEN C. TAYLOR, NAE, General Motors Corporation 

(Ret.)

CHRISTOPHER J. WELCH, Indiana Consortium for 

Analytical Sciences and Engineering (ICASE)
Panel Findings & Recommendations

Technical Adequacy

• NIST research is exceptional

• Global influence through standards-making bodies and SRM sales

• Challenge of expanding into biological areas

Portfolio of Scientific Expertise

• Challenge of succession planning and retraining when staffing up in 

newly emerging areas
Findings & Recommendations (cont’d)

Adequacy of laboratory budget, facilities, equipment, and human resources

• Reconsider operational model of 50% surcharge on equipment purchase

• Challenge of aging infrastructure that impacts quality of research and ability 

to carry out technical mission

• Well thought-out plans for new buildings especially for SRM

Dissemination of Outputs

• Impressive set of convening activities; participation in ISO and NSTC

• Impact of journal articles is high

• Opportunity to use post-doc network as brand ambassadors
.

Panel on Review of the 

Engineering Laboratory at the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

E. Sarah Slaughter, Ph.D., chair
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                    5
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       85,714
<SECURITIES>                                 30,221
<RECEIVABLES>                                11,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,131
<INVENTORY>                                  1,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             136,442
<PP&E>                                       19,391
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,998
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               157,293
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        46,565
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     289,656
<OTHER-SE>                                   (181,802)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 157,293
<SALES>                                      121,438
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             121,438
<CGS>                                        115,616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                205,275
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             13,980
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (13,980)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (97,817)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (97,817)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (97,817)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (3.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (3.52)


</TABLE>
Continuing Education Units

VERIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE FORM

Certification Number:________________

 attended the following professional educational activity. 

(NAME)

Title: National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Webinar: Competencies – The Next Frontier for 

Closing the Cybersecurity Skills Gap

Date(s): December 16, 2020 CEU Hours Earned: 1 hr 

Sponsor(s): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Explanation of Event: This webinar described a learner-centered approach to Competencies that is employer-driven and

how assessments can be used to observe and measure learner capabilities. Webinar attendees heard presentations from: 

• Karen A. Wetzel, Manager of the NICE Framework, National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE)

• Dr. Charla Long, Executive Director, Competency-Based Education Network

• Brian Kropp, Vice President and Chief of Human Resource Research, Gartner

Location: Virtual Webinar; www.nist.gov/nice/webinars

Name of Meeting Host: Rodney Petersen, Director of the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE)

 

Contact Information:

nist.gov/nice

nist.nice@nist.gov

The Continuing Education Units form is provided as a courtesy. It is the responsibility of the 

attendee to complete and submit with their certifying authority.
#### Earl THOMAS, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Captain CROSBY; Lieutenant Geneau, Defendants—Appellees, and Richmond City Jail; Sheriff Mitchell; Major Minion; Lieutenant Mccray; Lieutenant Hall; any and all other Deputies also Involved, Defendants.

No. 04-7066.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 17, 2004.

Decided: Dec. 10, 2004.

Earl Thomas, III, Appellant pro se.

John Adrian Gibney, Jr., Thompson & McMullan, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Earl Thomas, III, seeks to appeal from the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court dismissed Thomas’ complaint in an order entered on March 16, 2004. Thomas’ notice of appeal was filed in the district court on June 22, 2004. In that notice of appeal, Thomas stated he did not receive notice of the district court’s March 16, 2004 order until June 7, 2004, and he sought to appeal from that order. Because Thomas’ notice of appeal asserted that he did not timely receive notice of the district court’s order and also expressed his desire to preserve his appeal, his notice of appeal should be construed as a request to reopen the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). *See Myers v. Stephenson,*781 F.2d 1036, 1038-39 (4th Cir.1986).

Pursuant to *Houston v. Lack,*487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), a document is considered filed when delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Because Thomas’ request to reopen the appeal period was filed in the district court shortly after the expiration of the seven-day period for filing such a request and the record does not reveal when Thomas gave the document to prison officials, we remand the case to the district court for the limited purpose of *873determining whether Thomas’ request to reopen the appeal period was timely filed under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6)(A). If so, the district court should then consider whether to reopen the appeal period. The record, as supplemented, then will be returned to this court for further consideration.

*REMANDED*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7232
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CORDELL CHOW, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-96-89, CA-98-250-BO) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 29, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cordell Chow, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion andfind no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Chow , Nos. CR-96-89; CA-98-250-BO (E.D.N.C. July 21, 1998). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1750

In Re: ALAN B. HERMAN,

Debtor.

_________________________

ALAN B. HERMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SIDNEY L. SYNA,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 97-1751

In Re: ALAN B. HERMAN,

Debtor.

_________________________

ALAN B. HERMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MARILYN HERMAN,

Defendant - Appellee.
2

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA96-3489-DKC, BK-94-1-3259-PM, AP-94-1889-PM, CA-96-3490-DKC, AP-94-

1890-PM)

Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 13, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Charles Masselli, MASSELLI & LANE, P.C., Arlington, Virginia,

for Appellant. Sidney L. Syna, Marilyn Herman, Appellees Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

In appeal No. 97-1750, Appellant appeals from the district

court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s determination that

sixty percent of the debts owed to his former spouse’s attorney

were nondischargeable debts in his bankruptcy case. In appeal

No. 97-1751, Appellant appeals from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s determination that sixty percent of

the debts owed to his former spouse were nondischargeable in bankruptcy. We have reviewed the records and the district court’s opinions affirming the decisions of the bankruptcy court and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Herman v. Syna, Nos. CA-96-3489-DKC, BK-94-1-3259-

PM, AP-94-1889-PM (D. Md. May 5, 1997); Herman v. Herman, Nos. CA96-3490-DKC, BK-94-1-3259-PM, AP-94-1890-PM (D. Md. May 5, 1997).

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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 12.2
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of eLong, Inc.;
 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;
 4.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f)) for the company and have:
     5.
    
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the companys auditors and the
audit committee of the companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:
    
    June 29, 2011By: 
Name:
    
    /s/ Mike Doyle

Mike DoyleTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer