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

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

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                               0                     233
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,547                  10,308
<ALLOWANCES>                                       219                     212
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,189                  11,070
<PP&E>                                           4,540                   4,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,042                   2,249
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,375                  42,483
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,659                   9,464
<BONDS>                                          5,500                   6,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         5,032                  14,370
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,023                  11,699
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,375                  42,483
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                53,083                  45,983
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,344                  32,051
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 413                     712
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,609                  13,457
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,634                   5,825
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,975                   7,632
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,975                   7,632
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.66                    1.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.54                    1.28


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.C.K.S., A MINOR

PETITION OF: K.S., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 335 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.-C.K.S., A 

MINOR

PETITION OF: K.S., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 336 EAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of January, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit-23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-45338 on Form S-8 of our report on the consolidated financial statements
dated December 28, 2006, which report expresses an unqualified opinion, and
our report on the 2006 information in the consolidated financial statement
schedule, which expresses an unqualified opinion of AMCON Distributing
Company and subsidiaries, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
AMCON Distributing Company and subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2006.


McGLADREY & PULLEN
Omaha, Nebraska
December 28, 2006
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3157 

AN ACT 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Alexandria, Minnesota, as the ‘‘Max J. Beilke Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3157 EH

1 SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

2 OUTPATIENT CLINIC, ALEXANDRIA, MIN3 NESOTA. 

4 The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic 

5 in Alexandria, Minnesota, expected to open in September 

6 2009, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act 

7 be known and designated as the ‘‘Max J. Beilke Depart8 ment of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic’’. Any ref9 erence to such outpatient clinic in any law, regulation, 

10 map, document, record, or other paper of the United 

11 States shall be considered to be a reference to the Max 

12 J. Beilke Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clin13 ic. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 3, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3157 

AN ACT 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outOutpatient Clinic’’. ‘‘Max J. Beilke Department of Veterans Affairs patient clinic in Alexandria, Minnesota, as the
#### Arthur Farber et al., Appellants, v Kathleen Martin et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 86]

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In 1993, a consent order was entered granting petitioners visitation with their three grandchildren. Petitioners commenced this proceeding, alleging that respondents, the childrens’ parents, violated that order, and respondents cross-petitioned for a reduction in visitation. We reject petitioners’ contention that Family Court erred in granting the cross petition. The record supports the court’s determination that it is in the best interests of the children to modify the visitation order *(see, Schoffman v Schoffman,*137 AD2d 423, 424; *see also, Lo Presti v Lo Presti,*40 NY2d 522, 527). We also reject the contention of petitioners that the court erred in appointing a single Law Guardian for the three children (s*ee, Matter of Smith v Smith,*241 AD2d 980). Furthermore, there is no merit to the argument of petitioners that the court was biased against them. (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Morgan, J.—Visitation.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
FORT WORTH OFFICE | 201 M AIN S TREET

, S UITE 2500 | F ORT W ORTH

, TX 76102 | T ELEPHONE : (817) 332-2500 | F AX : (817) 878-9280

AUSTIN OFFICE | 301 C ONGRESS

, S UITE 2000 | A USTIN

, TX 78701 | T ELEPHONE : (512) 495-6400 | F AX : (512) 495-6401

MIDLAND OFFICE | 508 W. W ALL

, S UITE 444 | M IDLAND

, TX 79701 | T ELEPHONE : (432) 683-4691 | F AX : (432) 683-6518

NEW ORLEANS OFFICE | 400 P OYDRAS S TREET

, S UITE 1812 | N EW O RLEANS

, LA 70130 | T ELEPHONE : (504) 522-1812 | F AX : (504) 522-1813

Kelly Hart & Hallman, a Limited Liability Partnership | www.kellyhart.com M ARY H. S MITH

mary.smith@kellyhart.com T ELEPHONE : 817.878.9388

F AX : 817.878.9788



## April 13, 2015

Via Electronic Filing:

Ms. Vivian Long

Clerk, Seventh Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 9540

Amarillo, Texas 79105

Re: No. 07-15-00126-CV; Matthew Eugene Devine v. Vicki Dianne Devine

Dear Ms. Long:

Enclosed please find the Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Set Amount and

Type of Security for Supersedeas as referenced in Appellant’s Emergency Motion

for Review of Trial Court Ruling Pursuant to Rule 24.4 filed on April 9, 2015 in

the above-referenced matter.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. Should you have any questions, please

do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Mary H. Smith

Mary H. Smith

MHS/srb

Enclosure:

cc: James V. Jay, IV

jimj@lawgjm.com

Thomas M. Michel

thomasm@lawgjm.com

Robley E. Sicard

robleys@lawgjm.com

Counsel for Appellee ACCEPTED

07-15-00126-cv

SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

AMARILLO, TEXAS

4/13/2015 1:44:02 PM

Vivian Long, Clerk324-552104-1 4

CAUS E NO

. 324-552104-1 4

MATTHE W EUGEN E DEVIN E § I N TH E DISTRIC T COUR T

§

V

. § 324T H JUDICIA L DISTRIC T

§

VICK I DIANN E DEVIN E § TARRAN T COUNTY

, TEXA S

ORDE R DENYIN G PETITIONER' S MOTIO N T O SE T

AMOUN T AN D TYP E O F SECURIT Y FO R SUPERSEDEA S

O n Marc h 26

, 2015

, cam e o n fo r consideratio n Petitioner' s Motio n t o Se t Amoun t

an d Typ e o f Securit y fo r Supersedeas

. Th e Court

, havin g considere d th e motion

, th e

response

, an d th e argumen t o f counsel

, i s o f th e opinio n tha t th e motio n shoul d b e an d i s

hereb y DENIED

.

I T I S THEREFOR E ordere d tha t Petitioner' s Motio n t o Se t Amoun t an d Typ e o f

Securit y fo r Supersedea s i s hereb y DENIED

.



# 4- 2

^ 7 da y o f ,2015

. SIGNE D thi s



## t

JUDG K PRESIDIN G

Pag e I ORDE R DENYIN G PETITIONER' S MOTIO N T O SE T AMOUN T AN D TYP E O F SECURIT Y FO R SUPERSEDEA S

COURT' S MINUTE S

TRANSACTION # 

# SCf

G
Exhibit 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Douglas K. Beplate, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Emergency Filtration Products,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business
issuer and have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: August 14, 2003

/s/Douglas K. Beplate
Douglas K. Beplate, Principal Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       7,088,071
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,028,171
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,245,289
<PP&E>                                       4,562,472
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,462,252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             204,389,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,929,956
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,564
<OTHER-SE>                                 192,407,899
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               204,389,419
<SALES>                                      6,224,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,224,191
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,905,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (20,538,571)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (20,538,571)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (20,538,571)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Brooke Group Ltd.

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 9, 1995
in the registration statements on Form S-3 (No. 33-38869 and No. 33-63119) of
Brooke Group Ltd., relating to the consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' deficiency and cash flows of MAI Systems Corporation for the year
ended December 31, 1994, and related schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Brooke Group Ltd.


KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Orange County, California
March 27, 1997
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Robert Hemmerling, President and Chief Executive Officer of Eye Catching Marketing Corporation, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Eye Catching Marketing Corporation;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(d)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.







August 8, 2005

/s/Robert Hemmerling



Date

Robert Hemmerling,

President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Ajene EDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, and Geico General Insurance Company; Geico Indemnity Company; Government Employees Insurance Company, Subsidiaries of Geico corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-35279.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed Jan. 9, 2008.

Steve D. Larson, Esq., Scott A. Shorr, Esq., Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schla-*567chter, PC, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Melony Cargil Perry, Esq., Baker & Mckenzie, Dallas, TX, Thomas A. Gordon, Esq., Russell R. Pike, Gordon & Polscer, L.L.C., Portland, OR, Christopher Van Gundy, Esq., Baker & McKenzie, San Francisco, CA, Jay F. Utley, Esq., Baker & McKenzie, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, MARSHA S. BERZON, and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court. *See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr,*— U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007). The Court affirmed our holding in *Reynolds v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.,*435 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2006), that liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a) for “willfully failfing] to comply” with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) includes reckless disregard of statutory duties. *Burr,*127 S.Ct. at 2208. The Court also agreed with our holding that quoting or charging a first-time premium can be “an increase in any charge for ... any insurance, existing or applied for.” *Id.*at 2210 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(k)(l)(B)(i)). In addition, the Court held that notice is required only when consideration of a consumer’s credit report is a necessary condition for the increased rate. *Id.*at 2212 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(a)). Finally, reversing our holding, the Court held that the baseline for determining whether a first-time rate is a disadvantageous increase is the rate the applicant would have received had the company not taken his credit score into account. *Id.*at 2213.

The Court held that GEICO was not liable because “the initial rate offered to Edo was the one he would have received if his credit score had not been taken into account, and GEICO owed him no adverse action notice under § 1681m(a).” *Id.*at 2214. The Court rejected Edo’s alternative theory that GEICO’s offer of a policy with one subsidiary was an “adverse action” because it amounted to a “denial” of insurance through a lower cost policy with another subsidiary. Id. at 2214 n. 17.

Plaintiffs did not raise on appeal any basis for liability other than the theories rejected by the Court. Therefore we affirm the district court’s summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MORSHED ALAM,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 19

- 72744

Agency No. A215

- 826

- 397

ORDER

THOMAS , Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a)

and Circuit Rule 35

- 3. The three

- judge panel disposition is vacated. 

# FILED

JUN 3 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Second Stage Review.                    

*Date:*                         November 6, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, Bethesda/Chevy Chase, Room 7301, Waverly Street, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Jeannette L. Johnson, Ph.D., National Institutes on Aging, National Institutes of Health, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-7705,                         *johnsonJ9@nia.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 3, 2017.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-21685 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P