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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       3,022,851
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  297,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      32,563,740
<DEPRECIATION>                             (8,674,792)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,641,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,101,619
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,543,422
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,641,270
<SALES>                                      7,943,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,564,871
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,197,150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             122,307
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,245,414
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,245,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,245,414
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### WEEKS v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO.

Civil Action No. 4539.

District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 15, 1945.

B. Nathaniel Richter and Irving Katz, both of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Howard Burtt, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

KALODNER, District Judge.

This petition arises out of a notice by defendant to take the oral depositions of plaintiffs family at Richmond, Virginia. Plaintiff seeks to have the defendant charged with the travelling expenses and the fee of his attorney for attending the taking of the depositions. It is urged that it is within this Court’s equitable powers to so order.

If this Court has the power to charge the defendant with such expenses, it must stem from Rule 30(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following Section 723(c). I have found *18a number of cases where expenses and counsel fees have been charged to the party seeking to take oral depositions outside the hundred mile limit, but these predominate in districts where the Court is specifically authorized to do so by a local rule of practice, such as in the Southern District of New York. E.g., Stevens v. Minder Construction Co., D.C.S.D. N.Y. 1943, 3 F.R.D. 498; Boiczuk v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., S.D.N.Y.1944, 5 F.R.D. 18.

There is, however, no comparable local rule in this District. Moreover, there is no similar practice here. Generally, the parties pay their own expenses and find it more convenient and economical to engage local counsel at the place where the depositions are to be taken. There is no reason here for not taking this latter course.

I do not regard the case of Clair v. Philadelphia Storage Battery Co., D.C., 1939, 27 F.Supp. 777, in this District as setting a precedent, especially in view of the subsequent practice here. In that case, Judge Dickinson refused to allow counsel fees and expenses because he found Philadelphia more convenient; the expense of the attending witness, a former employee of the party seeking the deposition, was charged to costs.

Therefore, considering the practice here, and in view of the lack of special circumstances warranting this Court in exercising any power to the contrary, the plaintiff’s petition is denied.
# Specific Phobia

## Definition

**Specific phobia** is an intense, irrational fear of something that poses little or no actual danger. Although adults with phobias may realize that these fears are irrational, even thinking about facing the feared object or situation brings on severe anxiety symptoms.

## Prevalence of Specific Phobia Among Adults

- Based on diagnostic interview data from National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), Figure 1 shows past year prevalence of specific phobia among U.S. adults aged 18 or older. 1   - An estimated 9.1% of U.S. adults had specific phobia in the past year.
  - Past year prevalence of specific phobia among adults was higher for females (12.2%) than for males (5.8%).
- An estimated 12.5% of U.S. adults experience specific phobia at some time in their lives. 2

#### Figure 1
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00376-CR

Camie S. Mangrum

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From County Criminal Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1348519)

February 11, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
#### United States *v.*Polite *et al.*

*(District Court, D. South Carolina.*

May 15, 1888.)

Indictment and Information—OPilin® Information—Sufficiency.

An information set out that it was issued on the oath of the office of the district attorney, hut the information was not sworn to. Accompanying the information were the papers of the commissioner who held the preliminary examination, showing that the accused had been arrested on a warrant issued upon affidavits, and stating the necessary facts upon knowledge, and that at the hearing the evidence against the accused was taken under oath. *Held,*on motion to quash, that the information was good.

Information under Rev. St.U. S. § 53.99, for impeding a witness. . On motion .to quash.

*T. E. Miller,*for the motion.

*59
      *C. M. Forman,*Asst. Dist. Atty., *contra.*

Simonton, J.

The defendants are before the court on an information tiled by the district attorney for violating section 5399, Rev. St., impeding a witness. Accompanying the information are the papers of the commissioner who held the preliminary examination, including the sworn testimony of the witnesses taken in the presence of the accused. The information sets out that it is on the oath of office of the district attorney; but it is not sworn to. The defendants’ motion is based upon the absence of an affidavit to the information. It is true that informations must he based upon affidavits which show probable cause arising from facts within the knowledge of the parties making them, and that mere belief is not sufficient. *U. S.*v. *Tureaud,*20 Fed. Rep. 621. In the case at bar, the defendants were arrested on a warrant issued upon an affidavit stating facts on knowledge. They were brought before the commissioner, a committing magistrate. The evidence against them was taken on oath. Thus all the requirements of the law were fulfilled. Bradley, J., in *Instructions to Commissioners,*3 Woods, 502. Upon this sworn testimony the information was filed. The motion to quash is refused.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15098]



[[Page 30605]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): Translating Research To Protect Health Through 
Health Promotion, Prevention, and Preparedness, Panel F, Funding 
Opportunity Announcement (FOA) CD09-001, Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting:

    Time and Date: 1 p.m.-5 p.m., July 23, 2009 (Closed).
    Place: Teleconference.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance 
with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 
U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis 
and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the initial 
review, discussion, and evaluation of ``Translating Research to 
Protect Health through Health Promotion, Prevention, and 
Preparedness, Panel F, FOA CD09-001, initial review.''
    Contact Person for More Information: Shoukat Qari, D.V.M., 
Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., 
Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone (404) 639-4663.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: June 22, 2009.
Andre Tyler,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-15098 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, 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

July 15, 2010 

d0708 

Order 

 

July 15, 2010 

140568 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140568 

 COA: 286173 

Kent CC: 07-009738-FC 

JEFFERY MICHAEL MATA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2009 

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.
EXHIBIT 12



                 THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                       (Millions of Dollars Except Ratios)


                                    Three Months Ended       Twelve Months Ended
                                     December 31, 1999         December 31, 1999
                                    ------------------       -------------------

EARNINGS:

Earnings before income taxes                  $  169.0                  $  441.3

Interest expense                                  33.3                     126.3

Portion of rent expense
  representative of an
  interest factor                                  6.9                      27.7
                                              --------                  --------
Adjusted earnings before
  taxes and fixed charges                     $  209.2                  $  595.3
                                              ========                  ========

FIXED CHARGES:

Interest expense                              $   33.3                  $  126.3

Portion of rent expense
  representative of an interest factor             6.9                      27.7
                                              --------                  --------

Total fixed charges                           $   40.2                  $  154.0
                                              ========                  ========

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                5.20                      3.87
                                              ========                  ========
97-379.

#### Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co.

Cuyahoga App. No. 69523.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.
H. Res. 264 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

March 28, 2019. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following standing committee of the 

House of Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY: 

Ms. Herrera Beutler and Miss Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n of Puerto 

Rico. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
#### John ROBINSON, Jr. v. Anthony J. CELEBREZZE, etc.

Civ. A. No. 4240.

United States District Court E. D. Tennessee, S. D.

April 10, 1964.

*116Sam M. Plummer, Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.

J. H. Reddy, U. S. Atty., Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.

FRANK W. WILSON, District Judge.

 This cause is before the Court upon motion of the defendant, Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, to dismiss filed upon March 11, 1964. The plaintiff, John Robinson, Jr., filed this action upon January 8, 1964, seeking review of a determination of the Appeals Counsel rendered upon November 8, 1963. Jurisdiction is based upon Title 42, Section 405 (g), of the United States Code. The defendant relies upon the limitation of sixty days stated in 42 U.S.C. § 405(b) within which any individual may seek a review of any decision of the Secretary. The plaintiff, while admitting that the suit was not filed within the sixty day period as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), contends that Rule 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allows three additional days by reason of mailing of the final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. In view of the fact that the sixty day limitation is a part of the statute creating a cause of action and vesting jurisdiction in this Court, the time limitation operates as a condition of jurisdiction and liability, and not merely a period of limitation. United States ex rel. Rauch v. Davis, 56 App.D.C. 46, 8 F.2d 907 (1925); Pennsylvania Company for Insurances, etc. v. Deckert, 123 F.2d 979 (C.A. 3rd, 1941); Ewing v. Risher, 176 F.2d 641 (C.A. 10th, 1949). Rule 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, would have no application where jurisdiction of the Court does not attach by reason of the statutory period having run. Zeller v. Folsom, 150 F.Supp. 615 (D.C.N.Y., 1956); Frost v. Ewing, 13 F.R.D. 432 (D.C.W.D.Pa., 1953). The Court is of the opinion that the motion to dismiss must be granted.

It is, therefore, ordered that the defendant’s motion to dismiss filed in this cause be granted and that the cause be and hereby is dismissed.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our report datedMarch 30, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 of Dreams, Inc. and Subsidiaries, which is incorporated by reference in thisRegistration Statement. We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of the aforementioned report and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts.” 

/s/ GOLDSTEIN SCHECHTER KOCH P.A. 

GOLDSTEINSCHECHTER KOCH P.A. 

Hollywood, FL 

March 30, 2011
EX-10.1




Exhibit  10.1
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO  
CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC.  
AMENDED AND RESTATED  
2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 


WHEREAS, Citrix Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) desires to amend the Citrix Systems, Inc. Amended and Restated 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (as amended and in effect, the “Plan”) to decrease the term of stock options and stock appreciation rights from 10 years to 5 years (the “Plan Amendment”); and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2013, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved the Plan Amendment. 
NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 15 of the Plan, effective as of March 1, 2013, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
	
			
	 
	1.
	Section 7.2(c) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting such section in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:




 “(c) Option Period. No Option may be exercised on or after the fifth anniversary of the Grant Date.”
	
			
	 
	2.
	Section 7.3(c) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence of such section and substituting the following in lieu thereof:




“Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Stock Appreciation Right may be exercised on or after the fifth anniversary of the Grant Date.”
	
			
	



	3.
	Except herein above provided, the Plan is hereby ratified, confirmed and approved in all respects.
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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Dreams, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending March 31, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ross Tannenbaum, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|    |  |                            
|--- |  | ---------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Ross Tannenbaum        
|    |  | Ross Tannenbaum            
|    |  | Principal Financial Officer
|    |  | June 29, 2007
# Event Summaries about Schizophrenia

-  2023 Global Mental Health Conference: Research Without Borders  October 30–November 1, 2023  NIH Campus, Natcher Auditorium, Bethesda, Maryland  The 12th Global Mental Health Research Without Borders Conference brings together researchers, innovators, and scholars from around the globe to highlight cutting-edge findings and explore new opportunities for groundbreaking research. 
-  Technical Assistance Webinar: Accelerating Medicines Partnership® Schizophrenia (AMP® SCZ): Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Clinical Trial Network (U01 Clinical Trial Required)  August 9, 2023  Virtual  This technical assistance webinar was for prospective applicants of the Notice of Funding Opportunity: Accelerating Medicines Partnership® Schizophrenia: Clinical High Risk for Psychosis Clinical Trial Network. 
-  Facebook Live: Understanding Schizophrenia   May 4, 2023  Virtual  In recognition of Mental Health Awareness Month, NIMH hosted a Facebook Live on schizophrenia. 
-  Research Opportunities for Improving Treatment Interventions and Recovery Services for Adults with SMI  July 23–24, 2018  Rockville, MD  In collaboration with SAMHSA, NIMH sponsored a workshop focused on research priorities for treatment interventions and recovery services for adults with serious mental illness (SMI). 
-  Mini-Symposium - Computational Psychiatry: Multiscale Models of Mental Illness  November 12, 2017  Washington Convention Center, Washington, D.C.  On November 12, 2017, NIMH hosted a mini-symposium to introduce new and burgeoning field of computational psychiatry. Computational psychiatry applies cutting-edge quantitative methods and theoretical models to investigate neural or cognitive phenomena relevant to psychiatric diseases. Presentations covered practical examples of theory- and data-driven computational models of cognitive deficits associated with schizophrenia, emotion regulation, anxiety, and drug addiction.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 332 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 332

  Recognizing the accomplishments and the contributions of Vietnamese 
                               Americans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2019

 Mr. Correa (for himself, Mrs. Murphy, Mr. Lowenthal, Ms. Norton, Mr. 
Case, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Cisneros, Ms. Porter, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Rouda, and 
 Mr. Beyer) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Recognizing the accomplishments and the contributions of Vietnamese 
                               Americans.

Whereas, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, approximately 800,000 Vietnamese 
        refugees fleeing persecution resettled in the United States;
Whereas an estimated 1.7 million Vietnamese Americans currently reside in the 
        United States, making the United States home to the largest number of 
        individuals of Vietnamese descent outside of Vietnam and Vietnamese 
        Americans the fourth largest Asian American population in the United 
        States;
Whereas Vietnamese Americans have established strong communities across the 
        country, including in the States of California, Florida, Georgia, 
        Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, 
        Virginia, and Washington;
Whereas first- and second-generation Vietnamese Americans have overcome 
        tremendous socioeconomic challenges, including discrimination, language 
        and cultural barriers, and poverty, to emerge as significant 
        contributors to American society;
Whereas Vietnamese Americans contribute to American society through their work 
        in business, education, science and technology, engineering, 
        mathematics, literature and the arts, gastronomy, the Armed Forces, and 
        public service at every level of government;
Whereas Vietnamese Americans support the advancement of religious freedom, 
        democracy, and human rights around the world; and
Whereas Vietnamese Americans contribute to the rich cultural and religious 
        diversity of the Nation: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives to 
recognize the accomplishments and significant contributions of 
Vietnamese Americans in the United States.
                                 <all>
```