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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1
<CURRENCY>                                                          USD

       
<S>                                                        <C>                  


<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                        4,325,345
<SECURITIES>                                                  8,658,929
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 6,864,383
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 (5,670,169)
<INVENTORY>                                                  14,506,483
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             38,814,005
<PP&E>                                                        4,037,071
<DEPRECIATION>                                               (3,798,022)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               46,633,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         8,934,849
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                     25,190,579
<OTHER-SE>                                                   12,490,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 46,633,369
<SALES>                                                      15,377,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             11,387,407
<CGS>                                                         7,326,255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 5,378,204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                278,356
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (1,038,656)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   (348,601)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            (690,055)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   (690,055)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      (.09)

        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter D. Thousand, Appellant.

[967 NYS2d 864]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis and for other relief denied.

Present— Smith, J.E, Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Whalen, JJ.
**Safety Officer (2024)**

**Checklist #5**

**For the National Preparedness Review, you will need to have the following items available for review:**

***Key Code: E = Exceeds Standard, M = Meets Standard, NI = Needs Improvement, NR = Not Reviewed***

Safety Officer	4	Revised June 2024

# image1.png
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3012 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3012

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2-116th Street in North Troy, New York, as the Martin G. ``Marty'' 
                           Mahar Post Office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 22, 2010

Mrs. Gillibrand (for herself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2-116th Street in North Troy, New York, as the Martin G. ``Marty'' 
                           Mahar Post Office.

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

SECTION 1. MARTIN G. ``MARTY'' MAHAR POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2-116th Street in North Troy, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Martin G. `Marty' Mahar Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Martin G. 
`Marty' Mahar Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Bryn Kelsey, Respondent, v Aileen McNally, Appellant.

Submitted February 22, 2011;

decided April 28, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain this motion for leave to appeal from the order of the Appellate Division entered in this action commenced in a Justice Court *(see*NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b] [7]; CPLR 5602 [a]).
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our reports dated March 3, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and internal control over
financial reporting in the Annual Report of Warren Resources, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Warren Resources, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-130109, effective December 2, 2005) and
on Form S-8 (File No. 333-125277, effective May 26, 2005) and Form S-3 (File No. 333-158125, effective October 2, 2009).

/s/
GRANT THORNTON LLP

Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma
March 3, 2010

---



QuickLinks
#### Christopher Coleman, Respondent, v Putnam Hospital Center et al., Defendants, and Marcel Goldberger, M.D., et al., Appellants.

Submitted August 2, 2010;

decided October 14, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### Philip JEAN-BAPTISTE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 04-4193.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 22, 2006.

Filed: June 27, 2006.

Philip Jean-Baptiste, Talladega, AL, pro se.

Gwendolyn Dewees Hodge, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Philip Jean-Baptiste (Baptiste) appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging negligent exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. We affirm, because we conclude that the only claim that Baptiste administratively exhausted failed to state a claim under Arkansas negligence law. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2674 (under FTCA, United States shall be liable for torts in same manner and to same extent as private individual under like circumstances); *Washington v. Drug Enforcement Admin.,*183 F.3d 868, 873 (8th Cir.1999) (under § 2674, “ ‘under like circumstances’ ” means that there must be “private analogue” in state law to government’s conduct); *Maneth v. Tucker,*72 Ark.App. 141, 34 S.W.3d 755, 758 (2000) (threshold question that must be answered in negligence case is what duty, if any, defendant owed plaintiff); *cf. Barnes v. United States,*448 F.3d 1065 (8th Cir.2006) (affirming district court’s dismissal of FTCA claim for negligent inspection and negligent advice, because Missouri law did not impose duty to inspect or to advise; while federal agency was required to follow federal standards, there were no similar state standards imposing any duty).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
#### STEWART STAMPING CORPORATION and Adolph W. Hoernle, Plaintiffs, v. WESTCHESTER PRODUCTS COMPANY et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

Nov. 2, 1953.

See also, D.C., 119 F.Supp. 92.

*249Darby & Darby, New York City, for plaintiff Stewart Stamping Corp.

Russell E. Schlorff, New York City, for defendants.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to answer certain of defendant’s interrogatories is disposed of as follows:

Interrogatory 18 — On defendant’s consent on argument, this interrogatory is withdrawn with prejudice.

Interrogatory 21 — Motion to compel answer is denied. “Representations” to a mutual customer of both corporate parties, made after the filing of the complaint by plaintiff’s officers and salesmen “with respect to the present suit” for patent infringement and unfair competition are irrelevant1 and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,2 even as to whether plaintiff comes into equity with clean hands.

Interrogatory 23 — Motion to compel answer is granted. Whether plaintiff’s employees or customers ever complained about the performance of Foam Flux or Fester’s Flux may be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on the issue of corporate plaintiff’s allegation that defendants overcharged it for flux sold.

Interrogatory 25 — Motion to compel answer is denied. The interrogatory calls for a legal conclusion. However, corporate plaintiff is directed to give full disclosure of the machines themselves, used by it, by way of deposition, plans, specifications and photographs.

Interrogatories 26-37 — Motion to compel answer is denied. These interrogatories seek the opinion of an expert upon comparison of plaintiff’s patent with prior art and comparison of patents in prior art with each other. F.R.Civ.P. 33 was not designed to permit the elicitation of such data.3

Settle order on notice in conformity herewith.

1

. McInerney v. Wm. P. McDonald Const. Co., D.C., 28 F.Supp. 557; Nakken Patents Corp. v. Rabinowitz, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 90.

2

. F.R.Civ.P. 33 and 26(b), 28 U.S.C.A.

3

. Lanova Corporation v. National Supply Co., D.C., 29 F.Supp. 119.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 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 Kaire Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Westlund, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigneds knowledge and belief:
 
 (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.
 
 
 /s/ Steve Westlund
 Steve Westlund
 Chief Executive Officer
 August 20, 2004
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2981 

To reevaluate and redirect the stimulus. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2010 

Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. THUNE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To reevaluate and redirect the stimulus. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reevaluate and Redi5 rect the Stimulus Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OMB CERTIFICATION. 

7 Not later 15 days after the date of enactment of this 

8 Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

9 (referred to in this Act as the ‘‘Director’’) shall provide 

10 to Congress— 

11 (1) a list of programs that have unobligated 

12 stimulus funds provided under the American ReinVerDate Nov 24 2008 04:51 Feb 03, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2981.IS S2981

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2981 IS

1 vestment and Recovery Act of 2009 and the 

2 amounts that are unobligated; and 

3 (2) a list of stimulus funds that remain unobli4 gated that the Director recommends be redirected 

5 toward more effective programs to either assist dis6 placed workers or spur job creation in 2010 with a 

7 breakdown of the amounts of unobligated funds that 

8 could be reprogrammed by program. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
1

GGR Trending

+2.5%
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 24 (Friday, February 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 6284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2524]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP08-591-000]


Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Technical Conference

January 30, 2009.
    Take notice that Commission Staff is rescheduling the technical 
conference in the above-referenced proceedings, which was previously 
set to take place on Wednesday, January 28, 2009, to Thursday, February 
5, 2009 at 10 a.m. (EST), in a room to be designated at the offices of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dcbdbfbfb9afafb5beb5b0b5a8a59cbab9aebff2bbb3aa"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81e0e2e2e4f2f2e8e3e8ede8f5f8c1e7e4f3e2afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or (202) 502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 
with the required accommodations.
    All interested persons are permitted to attend. For further 
information please contact Anna Fernandez at (202) 502-6682 or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#75341b1b145b3310071b141b11100f35131007165b121a03"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="07466969662941627569666963627d476162756429606871">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2524 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: LATASHA DENELL MITCHELL,

Debtor,

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

LATASHA RICHARDSON, AKA LaTasha

Denell Mitchell,

Appellant,

v.

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,

Appellee. No. 22

- 60040

BAP No. 21

- 1265

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Taylor, Lafferty III, and Brand, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted October 18, 2023 * *

San Francisco, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, NGUYEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 20 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 60040

LaTasha Richardson appeals the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP”)

decis ion affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying her April 2021 motion for

contempt sanctions against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”) . We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)

. Reviewing the BAP’s decision de novo and

the bankruptcy court ’s order for abuse of discretion

, see In re Taggart , 980 F.3d

1340, 1347 (9th Cir. 2020) , we affirm.

Richardson argu es that SPS improperly litigated in state court because the

bankruptcy court stayed its remand order before the order took effect. T o be sure

,

a remand order “is not self

- executing.” Bucy v. Nev. Constr. Co. , 125 F.2d 213,

217 (9th Cir. 1942) . Jurisdiction does not transfer to the state court until it receives

“[a] certified copy of the order of remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447( c ) ; see Seedman v.

U.S. Dist. Ct. , 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (“Once a [federal]

court certifies a remand order to state court it is divested of jurisdiction

. . . .”).

However , Richardson forfeited her right to challenge SPS’s conduct because

SPS was merely responding to her attempt to undo the state court’s adverse

summary judgment ruling

. See Bucy , 125 F.2d at 218

– 19; cf. Roman Cath.

Archdiocese v. Acevedo Feliciano , 140 S. Ct. 696, 700 (2020) (per curiam)

(explaining that parties may defend their interests in state court when the state

court proceeds on a removed case despite lack ing jurisdiction).

AFFIRMED.
**Drill #05*Fire and Aviation Preparedness Review Guide***

**Stationary Attack/Hose Lay**

Drill 5-2Revised 2004

Drill 5-1Revised 2008
Additional Guidance on Gatherings and Events

January 26, 2021

To reduce the spread of COVID-19 and to maintain healthy operations, the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends avoiding large or small events or gatherings (e.g., 

concerts, shows, weddings, and meetings) where individuals cannot maintain social distancing of 

at least 6 feet. 

As tribes and tribally licensed gaming facilities consider, plan, and hold events and gatherings, 

the NIGC recommends utilizing the resources and checklists the CDC offers to enhance 

individual and community protections and to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Event planners 

and officials can determine, in collaboration with tribal regulatory authorities, whether and how 

to implement these considerations, with adjustments to meet the unique needs and circumstances 

of the local community. 

Because the transmission rate of COVID-19 varies widely by community, this guidance does not 

replace tribal health and safety laws, rules, and regulations with which events and gatherings 

must comply. Moreover, operators and tribal regulatory authorities should continue to monitor

and assess whether to postpone, cancel, or significantly reduce attendance due to shifting public 

health and safety risks. The NIGC continues to encourage collaboration with state and local 

health officials when assessing local conditions and needs. 

The CDC offers readiness, planning tools to share ways event planners, and administrators may

help protect staff and attendees and slow the spread of COVID-19. Information from the CDC on 

Events and Gatherings can be found at: 

• Events and Gatherings – Readiness and Planning Tool: 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/community/COVID19-eventsgatherings-readiness-and-planning-tool.pdf

• Considerations for Events and Gatherings: 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/considerations-forevents-gatherings.html

• Considerations for Casinos and Gaming Operations: 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/organizations/businessemployers/casinos-gaming-operations.html

NIGC Guidance Regarding COVID-19 can be found on our webpage at

https://www.nigc.gov/commission.
## Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Toby Lynn Williams

No. 06

- 24

- 00001

- CR Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief

Justice Stevens

, Justice van Cleef and

Justice Rambin participating.

As st ated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED JANUARY 2 3 , 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
# Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day, 2009

 For over two centuries, Americans have defended our Nation’s security and protected our founding principles of democracy and equal justice under law. On Memorial Day, we honor those who have paid the ultimate price in defense of these freedoms.

 Members of the United States Armed Forces have placed our Nation’s safety before their own for generations. From the first shots fired at Lexington and Concord to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, these brave patriots have taken on great risks to keep us safe, and they have served with honor and distinction. All Americans who have enjoyed the blessings of peace and liberty remain in their debt.

 As we remember the selfless service of our fallen heroes, we pray for God’s grace upon them. We also pray for all of our military personnel and veterans, their families, and all those who have lost loved ones in the defense of our freedom and safety.

 Today, as we commend their deeds, we also bear a heavy burden of responsibility to ensure that their sacrifices will not have been in vain. This means that, as we uphold the ideals for which many have given their last full measure of devotion, the United States must never waver in its determination to defend itself, to be faithful in protecting liberty at home and abroad, and to pursue peace in the world.

 In respect for their dedication and service to America, the Congress, by a joint resolution approved on May 11, 1950, as amended (36 U.S.C. 116), has requested the President to issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe each Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace and designating a period on that day when the people of the United States might unite in prayer. The Congress, by Public Law 106-579, has also designated 3:00 p.m. local time on that day as a time for all Americans to observe, in their own way, the National Moment of Remembrance.

 NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim Memorial Day, May 25, 2009, as a day of prayer for permanent peace, and I designate the hour beginning in each locality at 11:00 a.m. of that day as a time to unite in prayer. I also ask all Americans to observe the National Moment of Remembrance beginning at 3:00 p.m. local time on Memorial Day. I urge the press, radio, television, websites, and all other media to participate in these observances. I also request the Governors of the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the appropriate officials of all units of government, to direct that the flag be flown at half-staff until noon on this Memorial Day on all buildings, grounds, and naval vessels throughout the United States, and in all areas under its jurisdiction and control. I also request the people of the United States to display the flag at half-staff from their homes for the customary forenoon period.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-second day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

[FR Doc. E9-12509

Billing code 3195-W9-P