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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         181,646
<SECURITIES>                                 2,157,059
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,352,674
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,352,674
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          238,907
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,859,200
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,183
<OTHER-SE>                                    (804,617)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,352,674
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,248
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (43,389)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (43,389)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.01)
        

</TABLE>
Union Pacific Railroad /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 22, 2014

No. 04-14-00459-CV

FIBERLIGHT LLC,

Appellant

v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-08880

Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is 

GRANTED. The appellant’s brief is due on October 2, 2014.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 18, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40991 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FAVIAN MARTINEZ-AMADOR, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-03-CR-244-1

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Favian Martinez-Amador appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Martinez-Amador contends that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction must be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8 U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect aNo. 03-40991 -2- conviction only under that provision, and his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Martinez-Amador acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1726

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Warren Nelson Anderson, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

Submitted: December 4, 2018

Filed: January 14, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Warren Nelson Anderson, Jr. directly appeals the sentence imposed by the

district court after he pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. In a brief filed 1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.
under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Anderson argues that his sentence

of 90 months in prison, below the agreed-upon Guidelines imprisonment range of 121

to 151 months, is substantively unreasonable, essentially relying on a policy-based

challenge to the Guidelines in child pornography cases, see United States v. Collins,

828 F.3d 386, 389 (6th Cir. 2016) (noting plausibility of rejecting Guidelines

sentencing ranges in child pornography cases based on policy disagreements). 

Following careful review, we find no abuse of discretion. See United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (explaining that, after a

court of appeals ensures that the district court committed no significant procedural

error, sentences are reviewed under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). 

In addition, after independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly,

we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. 

______________________________

-2-
HMM Reference NIST Technical Note 2205: Item 10 Height of Wall Assembly

Burned 

unprotected 

deck post

Noncombustible

material

Ignited 

wood wall

at ground

Item 10 Height of Wall Assembly – Hardening exterior walls and deck supports 2 ft above ground will prevent windblown debris and embers 

from igniting the wall.

Source: ADAI, Univ of Coimbra

Stone 

deck post

Note: Selected photographs are included to illustrate each HMM hardening item. Additional vulnerabilities or hardening items may be seen in the photographs, but those are highlighted within their specific HMM item.
HMM Reference Installation Cautions

Notes Fire Hazards

24.00 in

•

•

•

Hardening Action: Replace exterior wall covering with 

noncombustible material for first two ft (from ground) and add 

metal flashing to protect bottom edge sheathing 

Applicable Conditions: All sheathing within two feet of the 

ground

Performance Goals: Prevent windblown debris and embers 

from igniting the wall

NIST Technical Note 2205,

Height of Wall Assembly, 

Table A, Item 10 (Page 58)

• Metal flashing is required for all

claddings, including ignition 

resistant materials

1. Seal noncombustible wall

covering to house exterior.

1. If superheated by close proximity

to flame, metal flashing risks 

igniting siding

Project: HMM House Size: A

Scale: 1:60 Sheet: 1/1

1

1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET AT  SEPTEMBER  30,  1998 AND THE RELATED
CONDENSED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS  OF  OPERATIONS  AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE
MONTHS  ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1998 OF  STRATFORD  AMERICAN  CORPORATION  AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES  AND IS QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          34,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                64,000
<PP&E>                                          82,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 194,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          118,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           59,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,154,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   194,000
<SALES>                                          2,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                44,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (42,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (42,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 749,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   707,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12
<FN>
EPS - Primary and EPS - Diluted have been restated to reflect the fifteen - to -
one reverse  stock split  effective  July 20,  1998.  Certain  amounts have been
restated to reflect the  subsequent  sale of the  vehicle  rental  business as a
discontinued operation.
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

   
As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Registration Statement of our report dated April 24, 1998 
(except for the matters in Note 10 for which the date is June 5, 1998), for the 
three months ended March 31, 1998, and for the period from inception (April 22,
1997) through December 31, 1997, and to all references to our Firm included in
this Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement on Form S-1.
    



                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Dallas, Texas
   
June 29, 1998
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,869
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      787
<ALLOWANCES>                                        50
<INVENTORY>                                      4,193
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,609
<PP&E>                                           3,415
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,554
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,261
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,364
<BONDS>                                          2,813
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,842
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,733
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,261
<SALES>                                          7,116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,620
<CGS>                                            5,673
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   850
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    49
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,610)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,613)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      68
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,545)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.64)


</TABLE>
United States Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Kentucky

2022

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international 

system of units (SI), maintains a documented calibration program, documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented 

measurement procedures, successfully completed training and proficiency tests, submitted a quality management system, and 

has demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope

_____________________________________

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

(Rev.: September 2021)

Effective Dates: 2022-02-01 to 2023-02-01

Mass Echelon III

2 kg to 1 mg

1000 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Volume Transfer, II

100 gal to 5 gal
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
       
<RESTATED>                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998            
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1998            
<CASH>                             6,944            
<SECURITIES>                       0            
<RECEIVABLES>                      1,283            
<ALLOWANCES>                       148            
<INVENTORY>                        347            
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   9,515            
<PP&E>                             652            
<DEPRECIATION>                     104            
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     10,083            
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              3,869            
<BONDS>                            0            
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              10,481            
<PREFERRED>                        0            
<COMMON>                           (455)            
<OTHER-SE>                         (6,010)            
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       10,083            
<SALES>                            2,239            
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   2,239            
<CGS>                              2,373            
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      2,373            
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   (98)            
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0            
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 567            
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (3,539)           
<INCOME-TAX>                       0            
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (3,539)            
<DISCONTINUED>                     0            
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0            
<CHANGES>                          0            
<NET-INCOME>                       (3,539)            
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (0.20)            
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.20)            
        

</TABLE>
#### Wm. Harper *v.*E. D. Peeples.

Appeal — Reversal—Premature Hearing.

The fact that a case was heard and determined before it stood for trial is not alone ground for reversal, it not appearing that plaintiff’s substantial rights were prejudiced by the obtaining of t)he relief sought sooner than he had the right to demand.

APPEAL FROM GRAVES CIRCUIT COURT.

February 13, 1873.

*L. Anderson, for appellant.*

*Stubbleñeld, Smith & Robertson, for appellee.*

OPINION by

Judge Lindsay:

The fact that this cause was heard and determined before it stood for trial does not authorize a reversal.

Besides this, we are unable to perceive how the substantial rights of appellant were prejudiced by obtaining the relief asked for sooner than he had the right to demand.

The court compelled P'eeples to accept the tendered deed and release appellant from liability on his judgment, in exact conformity to the prayer of the petition. As appellant has had his contract of compromise specifically enforced, it can not be that he objects to surrendering the possession of the land conveyed.

The judgment does not preclude him from asserting any right he may have to the cotton gin.

The question as to whether this gin passed with the land to ap-pellee must depend upon the construction of the deed and not upon the judgment in this case.

Judgment *affirmed.*
<PAGE>

                              MAYTAG CORPORATION

                                  Exhibit 12

               Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                (Amounts in thousands of dollars except ratios)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            Year Ended December 31
                                                 --------------------------------------------
                                                   2001     2000     1999     1998     1997
                                                 -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
<S>                                              <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Consolidated pretax income from continuing
  operations before minority interests,
  extraordinary item and cumulative effect of
  accounting change............................. $212,084 $356,654 $532,352 $463,067 $291,216
Interest expense................................   64,828   60,309   48,329   52,615   49,164
Mark to market adjustment on interest rate swap
  included in interest expense..................    9,330    6,295    5,972    5,616    5,370
Depreciation of capitalized interest............    2,467    2,643    2,750    2,952    2,530
Interest portion of rental expense..............    8,182    7,142    6,841    7,020    6,736
                                                 -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Earnings........................................ $296,891 $433,043 $596,244 $531,270 $355,016
                                                 ======== ======== ======== ======== ========
Interest expense (excluding swap mark to market) $ 74,158 $ 66,604 $ 54,301 $ 58,231 $ 54,534
Interest capitalized............................    1,056      552       72       17    4,191
Interest portion of rental expense..............    8,182    7,142    6,841    7,020    6,736
                                                 -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Fixed charges................................... $ 83,396 $ 74,298 $ 61,214 $ 65,268 $ 65,461
                                                 ======== ======== ======== ======== ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..............     3.56     5.83     9.74     8.14     5.42
</TABLE>

   Prior year results have been restated to reflect Blodgett and
Rongshida-Maytag as discontinued operations.
#### THE STATE v. NIGH, Appellant.

Division Two,

May 10, 1904.

APPELLATE PRACTICE: Affirmed on Record. Where there is nothing before the appellate court hut the record proper, and that is free from error, the judgment will he affirmed.

Appeal from Mercer Circuit Court. — How. *P. G.*Stepp, Judge.

Affirmed.

*Orton & Orton*and *Alley é Alley*for appellant.

*Edward C.*Crow, Attorney-General, for the State.

FOX, J.

The defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Mercer county, upon the charge of carnally knowing a female under the age of eighteen years, and his punishment assessed at a fine of one hundred dollars and six month’s imprisonment in the county jail; sentence and judgment, in accordance with the punishment so assessed, were duly entered. From this judgment defendant prosecutes his appeal.

*357This appeal was perfected in 1898, and the only-record before ns is that of the trial of the cause, the judgment of conviction and the prosecution of the appeal.

The judgment of conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction is before us in due form, and no reason is assigned by appellant why it should be reversed.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All concur.