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>                                                      102737
<SECURITIES>                                              10254310
<RECEIVABLES>                                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          10357047
<PP&E>                                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            33745929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       200453
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                                33545476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              33745929
<SALES>                                                    1887995
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           2336154
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              1488818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            449393
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          551434
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (153491)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               (153491)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (153491)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (153491)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0






</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Hon. Dennis M. Cavanaugh

v. : 10 Cr. 851 (DMC)

STEPHEN DEPIRO, et al. : ORDER

This matter having been opened to the Court on the application of the United States of

America, in the presence of defendants (through their respective counsel), for an adjournment of

the motion and trial schedule; the defendants having opposed any adjournment of the motion

schedule and a trial date subsequent to January 2013; the Court having considered the arguments of

counsel; and for good and sufficient cause shown;

WHEREFORE, it is on this 7th day of August, 2012

ORDERED that the government’s request for a continuance is hereby granted over the

defendants’ objections;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s Amended Order for Discovery and

Inspection, filed January 27, 2012, is hereby modified as follows: (i) the United States’ opposition

to defendants’ motions shall be filed no later than September 23, 2012; (ii) the defendants’ replies

shall be filed no later than October 22, 2012; (iii) the motions hearing date is scheduled for

December 10, 2012 at 9:30a.m.; and (iv) the trial of this matter shall commence January 29, 2013,

at 9:30 a.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other provisions of the Court’s Amended Order for

Discovery and Inspection shall remain in effect; and

1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the period from October 31, 2012 until January 29,

2013, shall be excludable in computing time under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

S/DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH 

HON. DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH

United States District Judge

2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

STEVE WOODEN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 235 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 10579 Filed 01/21/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 125751 Case 2:11-cv-00402-JLL-MAH Document 1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 1 of 8 PageID: 1
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 10579 Filed 01/21/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 125752 Case 2:11-cv-00402-JLL-MAH Document 1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 2 of 8 PageID: 2
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 10579 Filed 01/21/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 125753 Case 2:11-cv-00402-JLL-MAH Document 1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 3 of 8 PageID: 3
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 10579 Filed 01/21/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 125754 Case 2:11-cv-00402-JLL-MAH Document 1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 4 of 8 PageID: 4
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 10579 Filed 01/21/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 125755 Case 2:11-cv-00402-JLL-MAH Document 1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 5 of 8 PageID: 5
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 10579 Filed 01/21/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 125756 Case 2:11-cv-00402-JLL-MAH Document 1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 6 of 8 PageID: 6
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 10579 Filed 01/21/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 125757 Case 2:11-cv-00402-JLL-MAH Document 1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 7 of 8 PageID: 7
Case 2:33-av-00001 Document 10579 Filed 01/21/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 125758 Case 2:11-cv-00402-JLL-MAH Document 1 Filed 01/21/11 Page 8 of 8 PageID: 8
# Result 8.6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1999
<CASH>                                             752
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,398
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,436
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,343
<PP&E>                                         208,895
<DEPRECIATION>                                  80,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,824
<BONDS>                                         41,809
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           154
<OTHER-SE>                                      80,825<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,612
<SALES>                                        214,233
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,233
<CGS>                                           54,683
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  196,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (21)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,848
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,048
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,800
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.84
<FN>
<F1>Net of Treasury Stock
</FN>


</TABLE>
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 439 

Maintaining North Korea’s seizure of the vessel USS Pueblo and its detention 

of the crew were in violation of international law and seeking the return 

of the USS Pueblo to the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 12, 2019 

Mr. STEUBE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Maintaining North Korea’s seizure of the vessel USS Pueblo 

and its detention of the crew were in violation of international law and seeking the return of the USS Pueblo 

to the United States. 

Whereas the USS Pueblo is a commissioned ship of the 

United States Navy captured by North Korea on January 

23, 1968; 

Whereas the USS Pueblo carried three 50-caliber machine 

guns and were not fired when the USS Pueblo was being 

seized by North Korean patrol boats and engaged in no 

hostilities against anyone, including North Korea; 

Whereas the United States has made clear that the USS 

Pueblo was on an intelligence collection mission in the 

Sea of Japan at the time of its seizure by North Korea; 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 439 IH 

Whereas intelligence collection by vessels of this type is a 

standard and accepted practice in the world today; 

Whereas the USS Pueblo was engaged in a mission that is 

accepted by the navies and governments of the world; 

Whereas the USS Pueblo had strict orders to remain at all 

times at a distance more than 13 nautical miles from the 

nearest point in North Korean territory, in order to avoid 

any possible incident. The United States has no reason 

to believe the orders were not obeyed; 

Whereas even in the case of a warship that has entered territorial waters, the coastal state is not entitled to assert 

any jurisdiction over it other than to require the warship 

to leave the territorial sea if the warship does not comply 

with regulations of the coastal state concerning passage 

through the territorial sea and disregards a request for 

compliance; 

Whereas the United States contends international law gives 

no such right to seize a foreign war vessel within the territorial waters of North Korea; and 

Whereas all evidence shows that the USS Pueblo was on the 

high seas: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) maintains North Korea’s seizure of the ves3 sel USS Pueblo and its detention of the crew were 

4 in violation of international law; and 

5 (2) declares that USS Pueblo is the property of 

6 the United States Government and it should be re7 turned to the United States. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
You must file this document if you did not timely file the record and were unable to 

file it by the date specified in the appellate clerk’s letter that was sent pursuant to 

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3. If your request is granted and the record is not filed by the 

date requested, the matter will be referred to the Court for issuance of whatever 

order is appropriate to avoid further delay and to preserve the parties’ rights. 

 13TH COURT OF APPEALS 

 COURT REPORTER’S REQUEST FOR EXTENSION 

 OF TIME TO FILE RECORD 

Appellate Case Number: 04-15-00344-CR 

Appellate Case Name: Juan Ruben Sanchez Cerda vs. The State of Texas 

Trial Court Case Number: CR-3545-13-C 

____ The appellant has failed to request a reporter’s record. 

 The appellant has not made arrangements for paying for the record. 

 The appellant has made partial payment for the record. 

____ The appellant has made full payment for the record. 

 

 x The appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the fee. 

(Please check appropriate statement.)

I will be unable to file the record in this appeal by July 22, 2015 (the date specified in the letter from 

the appellate court clerk). I expect the record in this appeal to be approximately 600 pages. The record 

covers approximately 3 days of testimony. I believe I can file the record by August 12, 2015. I ask that the 

Court grant an extension until that time for filing the record. 

If the date requested is more than 60 days from the date specified in the clerk’s letter, you 

must attach a list of all appeals in which you are preparing a record that was requested before the 

record in this appeal. For each appeal, list the estimated number of pages and the expected 

completion date.

 Signature of Court Reporter

Jessie Salazar Printed Name 

100 N. Closner, 2nd Floor Address 

Edinburg, Texas 78539 City, State, Zip 

956-318-2260 Phone Number 

If the Court grants the request for extension, it will not exceed 30 days in an ordinary or restricted

appeal, or 10 days in an accelerated appeal pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3. 

** I have spoken with Appellant’s counsel, and he has no opposition to my request for extension 

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7/24/2015 12:00:16 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
#### BURRIS v. AMERICAN CHICLE CO.

No. 434.

District Court, E. D. New York.

Oct. 20, 1939.

Alexander Loeb, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Herbert F. Hastings, Jr., of New York City, for defendant.

GALSTON, District Judge.

This is a motion to vacate plaintiff’s notice of examination before trial on the ground that the notice is indefinite in respect as to the person to be examined by the plaintiff; also on the ground as to items 3 to 11 inclusive, the matters are within the knowledge of the plaintiff himself; and that item 26 is too general.

The notice, of course, should state the name of the person to be examined, or if such name is not available, then to designate the person by sufficient description. The notice does comply by referring to the “superintendent or caretaker in charge of the premises” of the de*10fendant, but is deficient in respect to other persons sought to be examined. If other witnesses are required then their names should be given.

Some of the matters embraced in items 3 to 11 inclusive are clearly within the knowledge of the plaintiff; and the objections therefore to items 3, 4, 5, *7,*10 and 11 are sustained.

Item 26 is too general and the objection is sustained.

The motion is granted to the extent indicated.

Settle order on notice.
ONE PRICE CLOTHING STORES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

    EXHIBIT 10(d ) - SUMMARY OF INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


    Pursuant  to  the  Company's  incentive   compensation  plan  (the  "Plan"),
    participants will be eligible for incentive compensation payments based upon
    individual  objectives and earnings of One Price Clothing Stores,  Inc. (the
    "Company"). The weight of each of these factors will be determined each year
    by the Company.  The maximum potential amount of the incentive  compensation
    payments  of  each  participant  will  be  based  upon a  percentage  of the
    participant's  annual base salary (the  "Percentage").  The  Percentages for
    each  participant  will be determined each year by the Company.  The Plan is
    subject to approval by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.
    Under the provisions of his agreement with the Company,  the Chairman of the
    Board is also  eligible for  incentive  compensation  payments in accordance
    with the  provisions  of the Plan.  Except  for the  Chairman  of the Board,
    directors who are not also officers are not eligible to  participate  in the
    Plan.
Rail Employer Reporting Instructions

Part VIII - Employer Reporting System (ERS) Internet User Instructions

Chapter 4b: How to Reply to Request from RRB

 Form GL-129a, Record of Employer Determination on Employee Protest

1

GL-129a Request

If the RRB receives from an employee a protest of the service and compensation reported on 

Form BA-6, the RRB will send the employer a GL-129a request. The request will appear in the 

New Items list which will be displayed when you first logon. You can work the item at this point 

or select it later by clicking the New items from the left menu and click the SSN link for the GL129a. This brings up the GL-129a screen. The screen is prefilled to show the RRB's record of 

service and compensation and what the employee is claiming that his or her record should be. 

Determine the correct service and compensation for the employee. 

Service and Compensation is Correct as Reported

If the RRB record is correct, click the 'Correct as Reported' button. This brings up a screen where 

you enter an explanation as to why the employee's claim is not being granted. The RRB uses this 

information to reply to the employee so please provide a complete explanation in terms that the 

employee will understand.

Adjustment is Being Granted

If the RRB record is being adjusted to agree with the employee's claim, click the 'Adjustment 

Granted' button. This brings you to a BA-4 screen pre-filled with identifying data and the 

adjustment claimed by the employee. Click the update button. 

Adjustment is Being Granted but not Exactly as Employee Claims

More than claimed. If you are granting the employee's adjustment but are increasing the amounts 

over what the employee claimed, click the 'Adjustment Granted' button. When the pre-filled BA4 appears, type over the pre-filled compensation amounts or click additional service months. An 

explanation is not required if you are granting more service or compensation than the employee 

claimed but if you feel that an explanation would be helpful, follow the steps below.

Less than claimed. If you are granting the employee an adjustment but in an amount less than the 

employee claimed, click the 'Correct as Reported' button, and explain the adjustment you are 

making on the next screen. After filing the explanation you will have to file a BA-4 for the 

correct adjustment. Follow the instructions under BA-4 in the previous section.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Partners 16 1995 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000812187
<NAME> ANGELES PARTNERS 16
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         405,772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  139,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      11,684,776
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,006,195)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,106,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                     12,876,172
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,130,938)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,106,881
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,929,190
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,689,371
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,507,448
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (694,457)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (694,457)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (694,457)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (48.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Partnership has an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 812 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 812

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 5, 2020.
    Resolved, That section 2(d) of House Resolution 107 (agreed to October 29, 
2019) is amended by striking ``or sibling of'' and inserting ``parent, or 
sibling of''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
#### The State ex rel. Smith, Appellant, *v.*Veach Trucking, Inc. et al., Appellees.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Smith v. Veach Trucking, Inc.,*Ill Ohio St.3d 261, 2006-Ohio-5697.]

(No. 2005-1808

Submitted September 19, 2006

Decided November 15, 2006.)

Angela D. Marinakis, for appellant.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Sue A. Wetzel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT Section 1350 Certification as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    The undersigned officer of Globalink, LTD. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: November 21, 2011 By: /s/ Robin Young  Robin Young Chief Executive Officer   Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT Section 1350 Certification as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    The undersigned officer of Globalink, LTD. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: November 21, 2011 By: /s/Ben Choi  Ben Choi Chief Financial Officer
@misc{10301,
  author = {Annabelle Lee},
  title = {Guidelines for Smart Grid Cyber Security},
  year = {2010},
  month = {2010-08-31},
  publisher = {NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7628},
  language = {en},
}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0007 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TRAVIS CLINTON PLANTIKO,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 26 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 20 2024

07/22/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0007