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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS LEGEND CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM 10-QSB FOR THE
QUARTER  ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>          0001061234
<NAME> MIDLAND CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,507,628
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      29,900,197
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,276,563
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      40,321,407
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        40,885,741
<LOANS>                                     43,088,654
<ALLOWANCE>                                    394,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             120,825,331
<DEPOSITS>                                 110,676,132
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,205,140
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,640
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,940,419
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             120,825,331
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                799,127
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,051,298
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,850,425
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,059,775
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,059,775
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          790,650
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                920,753
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                216,011
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     216,011
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   142,557
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.80
<LOANS-NON>                                    553,889
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               393,884
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                       470
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              394,354
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           233,706
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        160,648
        

</TABLE>
Order entered April 22 , 2016

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00435

- CV

IN RE JOE TRAMPAS BENAVIDE S, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F

- 99 21709



### O RDER

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang, and Justice Brown

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the petition for writ of

mandamus. We ORDER relator to bear the costs, if any, of this original proceeding.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. L ANG

JUSTICE
###### Editorial Note on Part 224

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

#### § 224.74 When must the Secretary approve or disapprove a final proposed TERA?

The Secretary must approve or disapprove a final proposed TERA within 270 days of the Secretary's receipt of a complete application for a TERA. If the Secretary fails to approve or disapprove a final proposed TERA within 270 days, the TERA takes effect on the 271st day after the Secretary's receipt of a complete application from a qualified Tribe.

[84 FR 69612, Dec. 18, 2019]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 1999 FORM
10Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             716
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,641
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,629
<PP&E>                                         131,246
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,191
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,917
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            37
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   181,616
<SALES>                                         63,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,034
<CGS>                                           17,353
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   62,267
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,363
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,596)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (945)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,651)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                          678
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,329)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.78)
        

</TABLE>
FILED

July 18, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

 AT JACKSON

 JUNE 1997 SESSION

JERRY W. HARDIN, ) 

) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9609-CC-00303

Appellant, )

) Henry County

V. )

) Honorable Julian P. Guinn, Judge

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction)

) 

Appellee. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Jerry W. Hardin, pro se Charles W. Burson

Reg. No. 13674-076 Attorney General & Reporter 

F.C.I. Memphis

P.O. Box 34550 Clinton J. Morgan

Memphis, TN 38184-0550 Counsel for the State

450 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Robert “Gus” Radford

District Attorney General

P.O. Box 686

Huntingdon, TN 38344

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED

PAUL G. SUMMERS,

Judge
-2-

OPINION

The appellant, Jerry W. Hardin, appeals pro se from a judgment entered

by the Henry County Circuit Court. On appeal, he contends that the trial court

erred in dismissing his two pro se petitions for post-conviction relief. Appellant

alleges that he was not fully advised of his rights when he pled guilty in May

1977 to forgery and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because

his attorney failed to file an appeal of the appellant’s July 1977 robbery

conviction. Appellant filed his petitions for post-conviction relief in these two

cases on March 21, 1996. On April 16, 1996, the trial court dismissed the two

petitions.

The appellant argues that the current Post-Conviction Procedure Act,

which became effective in 1995, provides him with one year from the effective

date of the new act in which to file his petition for relief. The appellant cites

Carter v. State, No. 03C01-9509-CC-00270 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, July

11, 1996) in support of his argument. The state maintains, however, that the

appellant’s right to file post-conviction relief from his 1977 convictions expired in

July 1989 under the previous Post-Conviction Act.

We believe that the legislative intent of the new Post-Conviction

Procedure Act was to decrease the burden of post-conviction petitions as noted

in the dissent in Carter. Therefore, we respectfully disagree with the decision in

Carter. The legislature did not intend to award every prisoner a one-year period

in which to file a post-conviction petition regardless of the amount of time that

had passed since his or her conviction. In this case, the appellant’s petitions for

post-conviction relief are time barred.

Therefore, this Court affirms the judgment of the trial court in accordance

with Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.
-3-

______________________________

PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

CONCUR:

______________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, Judge

______________________________

JOE G. RILEY, Judge
445 12th Street SW

Washington, DC 20024-2101

202-229-4040

PBGC.gov

FISCAL YEAR 2023 QUARTER Q1 FOIA REPORT

October 1, 2022 – December 31, 2022

Number of Requests 

Received

Number of Requests 

Processed

Number of Requests 

Backlogged

450 401 1
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Employers & Practitioners 
-  Mortality, Retirement and PV Max Guarantee 
-  ERISA Section 4044/4050 Mortality Tables 
-  ERISA Section 4050 Mortality Table (Missing Participants)... 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov's Spanish home page for more information available in Spanish.

Esta página no ha sido traducida. Por favor vaya a la página principal del sitio de español de PBGC para ver información disponible en español.

# ERISA Section 4050 Mortality Table (Missing Participants) for 2010 Valuation Dates

This mortality table is used as part of the "missing participant annuity assumptions" as discussed in 29 CFR 4050. This mortality table is also available in EXCEL.

The rate tables applicable for other years are accessible from the main ERISA Section 4044/4050 Mortality Tables page.

November 29, 2018

##           Related Information      

Subscribe to Interest Rate Updates
# C_2006249EN.01001402.xml

| 14.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 249/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/14

---

Action brought on 14 August 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-222/06)

(2006/C 249/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities

Defendants:

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | annul Memorandum No 04673 of 6 June 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme SPD Piemonte (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 007); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Memorandum No 04673 of 6 June 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme SPD Piemonte (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 007);

| — | annul all related and prior measures and, consequently, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all related and prior measures and, consequently, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
   (1)

Italian Republic v Commission

1

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 55.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 224
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

§ 224.109 What must a petitioner claim or request in a petition filed with the Secretary? In a petition filed with the Secretary, a petitioner must: ( a ) Claim that the Tribe, through its action or inaction has failed to comply with terms or provisions of a TERA, and, as a result, the petitioner's interest has sustained or will sustain an adverse environmental impact.
( b ) Request that the Secretary review the claims raised in the petition; and
( c ) Request that the Secretary take whatever action is necessary to bring a Tribe into compliance with the TERA.
[No. 5040.]

[No. 2603 C. A.]

#### The Board of County Commissioners of Las Animas County v. The People ex rel. McPherson.

Appellate Practice — Judicial Notice — Live Question.

■When, the appellate court takes judicial notice that an election precinct has been established, a mandamus proceeding to compel the board of county commissioners to establish such precinct pending upon review in such court will be dismissed, there being no live question for determination. — P. 247.

*Error to the District Court of Las Animas County.*

*Hon. Jesse M. Northcutt, Judge.*

An action for a writ of mandamus upon the relation of Prank McPherson against the Board of County Commissioners of Las Animas county. From a judgment granting the writ, the defendant brings error.

*Dismissed:*

Mr. Everett Bell and Mr. A. P. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Robert Bonynge, for defendant in error.

*Per Curiam,*

Department.3:

A complaint was filed in the district court of Las Animas county reciting that a petition was filed with the board of county commissioners of said county praying for the establishment of an election precinct at Primero in said county, but that the county commissioners had refused to act; and praying for a writ of mandamus .commanding the commissioners to establish an election precinct at said Primero. A demurrer to the complaint was filed, and was overruled, and judgment entered granting the writ. The board of commissioners-took the case to. the court of appeals by writ of error.

*247We shall take judicial notice of the fact that there has been a precinct established at Primero in said county. It is not material whether the precinct was established upon proper petition or by virtue of authority so to do under the statute.

There being no live question for us to determine, ^the cause should be dismissed.

*Dismissed.*
# C_2006212EN.01002801.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/28

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 July 2006 — Tzirani v Commission

(Case T-45/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Promotion - Filling an A2 post - Rejection of candidature - Principle of legality)

(2006/C 212/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marie Tzirani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 11 February 2003 to reject the applicant's candidature for the A2 grade post of Director of the ‘Staff Regulations: policy, management and advisory services’ Directorate in the ‘Personnel and Administration’ Directorate-General of the Commission; an application for annulment of the appointment of M.J. for that post and also an application for annulment, if necessary, of the explicit decision by the Commission to reject the applicant's complaint against those two decisions

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Commission to appoint M.J. for the post concerned in the vacancy COM/151/02 and also the decision to reject the candidature of the applicant for that post. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Commission to appoint M.J. for the post concerned in the vacancy COM/151/02 and also the decision to reject the candidature of the applicant for that post.

| 2. | Orders the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the defendant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004

1

---
# C_2006178EN.01002202.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/22

---

Appeal brought on 16 May 2006 by Athinaïki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 15 March 2006 in Case T-35/04: Athinaïki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM), Ferrero OHG mbh

(Case C-225/06 P)

(2006/C 178/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Athinaïki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE (represented by: A. Tsavdaridis, Attorney at Law)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferrero OHG mbh

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision of the Court of First Instance |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision of the Court of First Instance

| — | Reject definitely and in its entirety the opposition to registration of the mark applied |
| --- | --- |

—

Reject definitely and in its entirety the opposition to registration of the mark applied

| — | Order the Office and intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in opposition proceedings and before the Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office and intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in opposition proceedings and before the Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance erred in interpreting article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) because:

1

The Court of First Instance ignored the fact that the appreciation of the likelihood of confusion depends on numerous elements, mentioned in the seventh recital of the preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 41/94 (2) and, in particular, on the recognition of the trade mark on the market and not only on the degree of similarity between the trade mark and the sign and between the goods and services identified.

2

The earlier trade mark ‘Ferrero’ is not being used to identify products sold on the German market. As a result there is no likelihood of confusion for the average German consumer who does not associate the trademark ‘Ferrero’ with its products, whatever the degree of similarity between the two signs.

The Court of First Instance also ignored the fact that, according to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the likelihood of confusion on the part of the public must be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the relevant factors. The appellant submits that, had the Court of First Instance taken into account the interdependence of the relevant factors, it would have concluded that there is little risk of confusion.

---

(1)  OJ L 11, p. 1-36.

1

(2)  OJ L 209, p. 18-19.

2

---
#### § 212.4 Authority and responsibility of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The functions of the Bureau of Land Management are found in 43 CFR part 3160—Onshore Oil and Gas Operations, 43 CFR part 3180—Onshore Oil and Gas Unit Agreements: Unproven Area, 43 CFR part 3260—Geothermal Resources Operations, 43 CFR part 3280—Geothermal Resources Unit Agreements: Unproven Areas, 43 CFR part 3480—Coal Exploration and Mining Operations, and 43 CFR part 3590—Solid Minerals (Other Than Coal) Exploration and Mining Operations, and currently include, but are not limited to, resource evaluation, approval of drilling permits, mining and reclamation, production plans, mineral appraisals, inspection and enforcement, and production verification. Those regulations, apply to leases or permits issued under this part.
#### § 26.31 May I repeat my training?

Eligibility for repeat training and other financial assistance will be determined by your tribal service provider.
### §14902. Separation for substandard performance and for certain other reasons

(a) Substandard Performance of Duty.—The Secretary of the military department concerned shall prescribe, by regulation, procedures for the review at any time of the record of any reserve officer to determine whether that officer should be required, because that officer's performance has fallen below standards prescribed by the Secretary concerned, to show cause for retention in an active status.

(b) Misconduct, Etc.—The Secretary of the military department concerned shall prescribe, by regulation, procedures for the review at any time of the record of any reserve officer to determine whether that officer should be required, because of misconduct, because of moral or professional dereliction, or because the officer's retention is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security, to show cause for retention in an active status.

(c) Regulations.—The authority of the Secretary of a military department under this section shall be carried out subject to such limitations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe by regulation.

(Added Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1611, Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2958.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 1691(b)(1) of Pub. L. 103–337, set out as a note under section 10001 of this title.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOSEPH EDWARDS

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 22

- 124

LT Case No. 2020

- CF

- 2890

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. ________________________________/

Decision filed August 9, 2022

Appeal from the Circu it Court for Marion County

, Lisa D. Herndon , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender,
and Darnelle P. Lawshe, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Pam ela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona
Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER

, WALLIS and EDWARDS , JJ., concur.