alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3875]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-201-822]


Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Mexico; Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review; Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time limits.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limits for the preliminary results of the 1999-2000 administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order (A-201-822) on stainless steel 
sheet and strip in coils from Mexico. This review covers one 
manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States 
and the period January 4, 1999 through June 30, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 15, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Scott at (202) 482-2657 or 
Robert James at (202) 482-0649, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Enforcement Group III, Office Eight, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because it is not practicable to complete 
these reviews within the normal statutory time limit, the Department is 
extending the time limits for completion of the preliminary results 
until July 31, 2001 in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. See Memorandum from Richard O. Weible 
to Joseph A. Spetrini, on file in Room B-099 of the main Commerce 
building. The deadline for the final results of this review will 
continue to be 120 days after publication of the preliminary results.
    This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1675 (a)(3)(A) (2000)).

    Dated: February 8, 2001.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 01-3875 Filed 2-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
EXHIBIT 11

                             INTERSTATE BAKERIES CORPORATION
                  SCHEDULE REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                              (000's EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                 Sixteen Weeks Ended        Forty Weeks Ended
                                                ---------------------     ---------------------
                                                 March 7,    March 8,      March 7,    March 8,
                                                   1998        1997          1998        1997
                                                ---------   ---------     ---------   ---------
<S>                                             <C>         <C>           <C>         <C>
Net income                                      $ 29,871    $ 22,629      $ 93,998    $ 67,538
                                                ========    ========      ========    ========

Basic weighted average common shares
 outstanding                                      73,349      75,058        73,665      74,882
Effect of dilutive stock compensation              1,418       1,528         1,389       1,208
                                                --------    --------      --------    -------- 
Diluted weighted average common 
 shares outstanding                               74,767      76,586        75,054      76,090
                                                ========    ========      ========    ========

Earnings per share:
  Basic                                         $    .41    $    .30      $   1.28    $    .90
                                                ========    ========      ========    ======== 
  Diluted                                       $    .40    $    .30      $   1.25    $    .89
                                                ========    ========      ========    ========

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,709
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,087
<INVENTORY>                                     12,651
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,251
<PP&E>                                          91,159
<DEPRECIATION>                                  49,057
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,522
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           119
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,103
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,796
<SALES>                                        205,327
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,327
<CGS>                                          125,133
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  173,874
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   466
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,682
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,059
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,623
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,623
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.60


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This article contains summary information extracted for the nine months
ended November 30, 1998 Form 10-Q Balance Sheet and 
Statement of Operations as of November 30, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000827830
<NAME>                        Neal Ludeke
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         657,976
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  452,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,600,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          175,451
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,425,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,600,458
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               41,979
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               239,859
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (197,880)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (197,880)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 24.1


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


          KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that each of the  undersigned  officers
and  directors of CSX Trade  Receivables  Corporation,  a Delaware  Corporation,
which is to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission,  Washington, D.C.,
a Form 10-K (Annual Report) on behalf of the CSXT Trade Receivables Master Trust
(issuer in  respect  of the CSXT Trade  Receivables  Master  Trust  5.05%  Trade
Receivables Participation  Certificates,  Series 1993-1 and issuer in respect of
the CSXT Trade Receivables  Master Trust 6.00% Trade  Receivables  Participation
Certificates,   Series  1998-1),   hereby  constitutes  and  appoints  Ellen  M.
Fitzsimmons his true and lawful  attorney-in-fact  and agent, for him and in his
name,  place  and  stead to sign  said  Form  10-K,  and any and all  amendments
thereto,  with power where  appropriate to affix the corporate seal of CSX Trade
Receivables  Corporation  thereto and to attest said seal, and to file said Form
10-K,  and any  and all  other  documents  in  connection  therewith,  with  the
Securities and Exchange Commission,  hereby granting unto said  attorney-in-fact
and agent full power and authority to do and perform any and all acts and things
requisite  and  necessary  to be done in and about the  premises as fully to all
intents and  purposes as he might or could do in person,  hereby  ratifying  and
confirming all that said  attorney-in-fact and agent may lawfully do or cause to
be done by virtue hereof.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands this
15th day of March, 1999.

                                          /s/  GREGORY R. WEBER
                                          ---------------------
                                          Gregory R. Weber


                                          /s/  DAVID D. OWEN
                                          ------------------
                                          David D. Owen


                                          /s/  DAVID A. BOOR
                                          ------------------
                                          David A. Boor


                                          /s/  ALLEN C. GOOLSBY, III
                                          --------------------------
                                          Allen C. Goolsby, III


                                          /s/  LESLIE A. GRANDIS
                                          ----------------------
                                          Leslie A. Grandis




                                       -1-
#### Mauricio E. WEBER, a/k/a Mauricio Esteban Weber, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF ANDERSON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, Respondent-Appellee, and SC Attorney General; John Skipper, Jr., Respondents.

No. 13-7879.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 17, 2014.

Decided: April 21, 2014.

Mauricio E. Weber, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maurice E. Weber appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Weber has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JUL-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                 244,400
<SECURITIES>                           392,059
<RECEIVABLES>                        7,310,072
<ALLOWANCES>                          (110,000)
<INVENTORY>                         10,356,092
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    19,147,989
<PP&E>                               9,326,734
<DEPRECIATION>                      (1,483,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      27,749,228
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                5,329,987
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    2,475
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                           9,714,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        30,107,980
<SALES>                             34,001,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    34,001,248
<CGS>                               24,609,631
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       24,609,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     7,562,448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     835,619
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      1,074,290
<INCOME-TAX>                           100,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    974,290
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           974,290
<EPS-BASIC>                               0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0.40


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1775 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1775

  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to include services 
provided by interns and residents at Federally-qualified health centers 
  that provide services in a rural area in determining the amount of 
   payment to hospitals under part A of the medicare program for the 
                  indirect costs of medical education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 1993

Mr. Payne of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to include services 
provided by interns and residents at Federally-qualified health centers 
  that provide services in a rural area in determining the amount of 
   payment to hospitals under part A of the medicare program for the 
                  indirect costs of medical education.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Federally-Qualified Health 
Center Resident Training Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR INDIRECT COSTS OF GRADUATE MEDICAL 
              EDUCATION PROVIDED IN CERTAIN RURAL FEDERALLY-QUALIFIED 
              HEALTH CENTERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(iv) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)(iv)) is amended by inserting after ``the 
hospital'' the following: ``or providing services at any Federally-
qualified health center (as defined in section 1861(aa)(4)) that 
provides services in a rural area (if the hospital incurs all, or 
substantially all, of the costs of the services furnished to the 
hospital by such interns and residents)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 1993.

                                 <all>
```
CL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0127

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v. 

CHRISTOPHER ROBIN LEDEAU,

Defendant and Appellant. 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to

and including July 24, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s

response brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 11 2024

06/11/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0127
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00133-CV

Leonard Robles, Appellant

v.

Dianna Martinez-Robles, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-06-003332, HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Leonard Robles has filed an unopposed motion to dismissthis appeal. We

grant Robles’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: July 11, 2014
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50557 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANGEL BORUNDA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-02-CR-100-16-RAJ

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Angel Borunda appeals his sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in excess of 1000 kilograms of marijuana. Borunda wassentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a fiveyear term of supervised release. Prosecutorial misconduct was an exception to the appeal waiver provision in Borunda’s plea agreement, and Borunda argues that his waiver was invalid because the prosecutor engaged in United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 22, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-50557 -2- misconduct in asserting that Borunda was not eligible for application of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, the safety valve provision. The evidence presented showed that the agents did not believe that Borunda had provided them with all the information or evidence that he possessed, and the district court agreed with the agents by refusing to apply the safety valve provision. Borunda has not demonstrated any act of misconduct on the part of the prosecutor in connection with the district court’s decision not to apply the safety valve provision. Thus, Borunda was not entitled to rely on the prosecutorial misconduct exception to the waiver provision in his plea agreement. Borunda has not otherwise shown that the waiver was unknowingly and involuntarily entered. See United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1992). Borunda cannot overcome the waiver by arguing that his sentence was illegal because such argument was not excepted from the waiver. The waiver in Borunda’s plea agreement must be enforced, and the appeal DISMISSED. We need not address Borunda’s claim that the district court erred in refusing to apply the safety valve provision.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### Leroy WHITE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charlie JONES, Warden, Attorney General, State of Alabama, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 11-10069.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 13, 2011.

*293Before EDMONDSON, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Alabama death row inmate Leroy White has moved this Court for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to review the district court’s denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s judgment denying White’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

We deny White’s motion for a COA as unripe because he has not filed a motion for a COA in the district court first and obtained a ruling from the district court. *See United States v. Futch,*518 F.3d 887, 894 n. 1 (11th Cir.2008) (“District courts must consider and rule upon the propriety of issuing the COA first, that is, before a request for a COA will be received or acted on by this court or a judge of this court.”).

Alternatively, we deny the motion for a COA in the reasons outlined in our order denying White’s second motion for a stay of execution.

MOTION DENIED.

WILSON, Circuit Judge,

dissenting:

I dissent from the Court’s denial of the motion for a COA for the reasons outlined in my dissent from the order denying White’s second motion for a stay of execution.
| 1. | The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  Dated: July 26, 2012 |   |                               |
|----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|                       |   |                               |   |
|                       | By:    | /s/ Richard S Willis          |   |
|                       |   | Richard S Willis                   |   |
|                       |   | President, Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                       |   |                               |   |