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


<ARTICLE>                         5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from Angeles
Partners X 2000  Second  Quarter  10-QSB and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                             0000317900
<NAME>                            Angeles Partners X
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1,000


<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                405
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         103
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                              9,682
<DEPRECIATION>                                      6,861
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      3,619
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                             8,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                         (5,295)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        3,619
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    1,249
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    1,190
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                           59
<EPS-BASIC>                                          3.11 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

Extendicare Logo

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 21, 2004

Extendicare Announces First Quarter News Release, Conference Call and
Annual Meeting Information

MARKHAM, ONTARIO (TSX: EXE and EXE.A; NYSE: EXE.A). Extendicare Inc. will
release its 2004 first quarter financial results on Thursday, May 6, 2004. The
Company will hold a conference call on Friday, May 7, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. (ET)
to discuss its results for the first quarter.

Following its release on May 6, 2004, the Company will post a copy of the press
release on its website, in addition to an update of its supplemental
information package found under the Investor Information/Investor
Documents/Supplemental Information section of its website.

The May 7, 2004 conference call will be webcast live, and archived, in the
Investor Information section of Extendicares website, www.extendicare.com.

For those wishing to call in, the toll-free number of the live call is
1-800-387-6216. Local callers please dial 416-405-9328. A taped rebroadcast
will be available approximately two hours following the live call on May 7,
2004 until midnight on May 21, 2004. To access the rebroadcast, dial
1-800-408-3053. Local callers please dial 416-695-5800. The conference ID
number is 3035667.

Scheduled speakers for the Company on the conference call include: Mel
Rhinelander, President and Chief Executive Officer; Mark Durishan,
Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer; and Christopher Barnes,
Manager, Investor Relations.

Annual Shareholders Meeting

Extendicares Annual Meeting of holders of Subordinate Voting Shares and
Multiple Voting Shares will be held at The Glenn Gould Studio, Canadian
Broadcasting Centre, 250 Front Street West, Toronto, Ontario, on Thursday, May
6, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. (ET). For Annual Meeting purposes, the record date for
holders of Subordinate Voting Shares (EXE.A) and Multiple Voting Shares (EXE)
is March 19, 2004.

For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will be webcast on
Extendicares website in the investor section at www.extendicare.com.
Managements presentation to shareholders will be streamed in real time with
accompanying slides. The webcast will also be archived on the site.
Instructions for accessing the event will be provided on the website.

Extendicare, through its subsidiaries, operates 267 long-term care facilities
across North America, with capacity for over 27,800 residents. As well, through
its operations in the United States, Extendicare offers medical specialty
services such as subacute care and rehabilitative therapy services, while home
health care services are provided in Canada. The Company employs 35,800 people
in the United States and Canada.

For further information, contact:
Christopher Barnes
Manager, Investor Relations
Telephone:   (905) 470-5483
Fax:   (905) 470-4003
Visit Extendicares Website @ www.extendicare.com

-30-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0164

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

DONALD WAYNE PULST,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable Kaydee Snipes Ruiz, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 26 2023

07/26/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0164
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's unaudited financial statements for the quarter ended June 30, 1999
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  Sep-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                       Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                    920
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          920
<PP&E>                                  5,038
<DEPRECIATION>                          1,670
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          4,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,030
<BONDS>                                   999
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                              2,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            4,288
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        3,063
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           1,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         1,773
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     1,773
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            1,773
<EPS-BASIC>                           81.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                           81.46


</TABLE>
#### Angeline SITHOLE; Davis Chilundo; Totiwe Rumbidzai Chilundo; Davies Tadiwa Chilundo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-60224

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 26, 2006.

Paul Ngoyi, Law Offices of Paul Ngoyi, Dallas, TX, for Petitioners.

David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Andrew Cunningham MacLachlan, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division Immigration Litigation, Barry Joseph Pettinato, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, Anne M. Estrada, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, Dallas, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.

Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*445PER CURIAM: *

Angeline Sithole, Davis Chilundo, Totiwe Chilundo and Davies Chilundo, natives and citizens of Zimbabwe, petition for review of an order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an order of the immigration judge (“IJ”) denying their consolidated application for asylum and withholding of removal and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Sithole, the lead applicant, concedes that her asylum application was untimely but contends that she has demonstrated changed circumstances that materially affect her eligibility for asylum. We lack jurisdiction to review this claim, which is therefore dismissed. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); *Zhu v. Ashcroft,*382 F.3d 521, 527 (5th Cir.2004).

In rejecting the applications, the BIA found that Sithole lacked credibility. This court generally reviews only the BIA’s decision, not that of the IJ, except to the extent that the IJ’s decision influenced the BIA. *Mikhael v. INS,*115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir.1997). Because the BIA summarily affirmed, without opinion, the IJ’s decision is the final agency determination for judicial review. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(iii).

The IJ articulated cogent reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for rejecting Sithole’s testimony as incredible. *See Chun v. INS,*40 F.3d 76, 79 (5th Cir.1994). Absent credible testimony by Sithole, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that she failed to establish that she was eligible for withholding of removal. *See id.*She also has failed to show error in the IJ’s denial of relief under the CAT. *See Efe v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 899, 907 (5th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the petitions for review are denied.

PETITIONS DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; PETITIONS DENIED IN PART.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *446the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

h1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145595

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145595

COA: 300896

Clare CC: 09-003660-FC

JUSTIN TODD GASKILL,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 12, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1877 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1877

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
   Representatives, Allowance for Compensation of Interns In Member 
                     Offices for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
   Representatives, Allowance for Compensation of Interns In Member 
                     Offices for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES, ALLOWANCE FOR COMPENSATION OF INTERNS IN 
              MEMBER OFFICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for House of Representatives, 
Allowance for Compensation of Interns In Member Offices for fiscal year 
2024 may not exceed $8,800,000.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7557

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DARRICK FERGUSON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:03-cr-00310-CMH-1; 1:07-cv-00318-CMH) 

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Darrick Ferguson, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Leo Fahey, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Darrick Ferguson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 

683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the 

record and conclude that Ferguson has not made the requisite 

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 

and dismiss the appeal. 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
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 218 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 218

To require agencies to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
                for major rules, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

 Mr. Van Drew introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require agencies to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
                for major rules, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Expedited Removal Codification Act 
of 2023''.

SEC. 2. DESIGNATING ALIENS FOR EXPEDITED REMOVAL.

    The notice titled, ``Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal'', 
issued by the Department of Homeland Security on July 23, 2019 (84 Fed. 
Reg. 35409), shall have the full force and effect of law.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Partners X 1997 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000317900
<NAME> ANGELES PARTNERS X
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,284
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       32
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          14,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         13,713
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,125)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,648
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,157
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (539)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,734
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   198.39<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In condition with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended
October 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George G. Usher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the
report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

|By |  | /s/GEORGE G. USHERGeorge G. Usher
Chief Executive Officer
December 16, 2002
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA BELL, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 06-0356-WS-M

 )

INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES, )

INC., )

 et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. (Doc.

24). The motion was filed in response to the Court’s order granting the defendants’

motion to dismiss for failure to perfect service of process. (Doc. 23).

The grant or denial of a motion to reconsider is left to the discretion of the trial

court. E.g., Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023-24 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Such a motion may not be used as a vehicle to inject new arguments into the underlying

motion, or to submit evidence previously available but not properly presented on the

underlying motion. E.g., Mays v. United States Postal Service, 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir.

1997). Instead, “[a] motion to reconsider is only available when a party presents the

court with evidence of an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of new

evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Summit Medical

Center, Inc. v. Riley, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1355 (M.D. Ala. 2003); accord Gougler v.

Sirius Products, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005). 

This standard was expressed in the Court’s previous order (because the plaintiff

effectively sought reconsideration of the Court’s order denying remand), (Doc. 223 at 5),

but the plaintiff’s pending motion for reconsideration fails to recognize the narrow reach

of such a motion. Their motion regurgitates arguments already rejected, injects new ones,

Case 2:06-cv-00356-WS-M Document 25 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 2
-2-

and cites cases that were available but unused by the plaintiffs previously. This is not the

stuff of which successful motions for reconsideration are made. Even were the Court’s

review unencumbered by the restrictive standard set forth above, nothing in the plaintiffs’

motion would support a different result than that reached on the defendants’ motion to

dismiss.

For the reasons set forth above, the motion for reconsideration is denied. 

 

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of February, 2007.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00356-WS-M Document 25 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 2
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 Yearly Report of China Yida Holding, Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Yongxi Lin , Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and the results of operations of the Company.








/s/  Yongxi Lin


Yongxi Lin


Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer








Dated: March 27, 2012