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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1090910
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   160930
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1252751
<PP&E>                                        17812334
<DEPRECIATION>                                 3725762
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                15776025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           655967
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    14988058
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  15776025
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                528908
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    70818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                158533
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 299557
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             299557
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    299557
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     6.00
        

</TABLE>
# C_2010301EN.01001501.xml

| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/15

---

Action brought on 1 September 2010 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-431/10)

()

2010/C 301/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to fully adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/85/EC (1) of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, or in any event by failing to notify measures for the full transposition of those provisions into national law, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to fully adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/85/EC (1) of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, or in any event by failing to notify measures for the full transposition of those provisions into national law, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

1

| — | order Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 December 2007. The period within which article 15 of the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 December 2008.

---

(1)  OJ L 326, p. 13

1

---
#### William B. R. Stephens *v.*Marshall H. Holmes.

Mechanic’s *lien—whether it exists.*Where it was sought to establish and enforce a mechanic’s lien for'the amount due the petitioner for work done in moving a building from-one lot to another, at the request of the *337owner, the defendant in the petition raising the building up and placing posts under it, and the petitioner performing no other labor except in the moving of the building, it was *held,*that such a case was not embraced in the statute.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Joseph E. Gary, Judge, presiding.

Mr. Abner Smith, for the appellant.

Messrs. Willett *&*Herring, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a petition in the Superior court of Cook county to establish and enforce a mechanic’s lien.

The work done consisted in moving a building by the petitioner from one lot to another, at the request of the owner,the defendant in the petition, raising the building up and placing posts under it.

There was a demurrer to the petition, which was sustained by the court, and judgment rendered against the petitioner for the costs, from which he appeals.

The only question is, does the statute respecting mechanics’ liens provide for such a case—is it embraced within its provisions?

It appears the sole business of the petitioner was that of moving buildings. His counsel take the ground that the mechanic’s lien- law is a remedial act, and must be liberally construed, to embrace this and other like cases.

The statute provides, by section 1, that any person who, by contract with the owner of a piece of land or town lot, shall furnish labor or materials for erecting or repairing any building on such land or lot, shall have a lien upon the whole tract of land or town lot, for the amount due to him for such labor or materials. R. S. 348, sec. 1.

We fail to see any allegation in the petition which can be construed as erecting or repairing a building. The building *338was moved a great distance, as is inferred from the time consumed in the work—seven entire days. It must have received more or less injury by the operation, but there is no averment that those injuries were repaired, or any repairs whatever done on it. To hold that moving a building is equivalent to erecting and repairing a building, would be giving to the statute a construction at variance with its terms and object.

In *Cook et al.*v. *Heald et al.*21 Ill. 429, this court said this lien was statutory, in derogation of the common law, opposed to common right, and should be strictly construed. Courts are not justifiable in extending its provisions beyond the cases provided for in the act; and if they are not sufficiently comprehensive, the legislature alone can apply the correction. *Huntington*v. *Barton, post,*p. 502.

We know of no adjudicated cases where statutes of this kind have been extended beyond the terms employed in the statute.

We are well satisfied the case set forth in the petition is not embraced in the statute, and the demurrer was properly sustained.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### § 100.151 Recounts.

A purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made with respect to a recount of the results of a Federal election, or an election contest concerning a Federal election, is not an expenditure except that the prohibitions of 11 CFR 110.20 and part 114 apply.

[67 FR 50585, Aug. 5, 2002, as amended at 67 FR 78680, Dec. 26, 2002]
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Paul Franklin, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 59647;

First District (5th Division)

November 22, 1974.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Harold A. Cowen and James M. Sammons, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.

Bernard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Frank J. Parkerson, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

PER CURIAM.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 12140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4984]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 [Docket No. 50-461; NRC-2011-0050]


Clinton Power Station Notice of Withdrawal of Application for 
Amendment to Facility Operating License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) has 
granted the request of Exelon Generation Company, LLC, to withdraw its 
March 3, 2010 application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating 
License No. NPF-62 for the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, located in 
DeWitt County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical 
Specifications 3.1.7, to extend the completion time for Condition B 
(i.e., two standby liquid control subsystems inoperable) from 8 hours 
to 72 hours.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2010, 
75 FR 23814. However, by letter dated February 22, 2011, the licensee 
withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated March 3, 2010, and the licensee's 
letter dated February 22, 2011, which withdrew the application for 
license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, 
at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible 
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the 
NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do 
not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff 
by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cebeaabce0bcabbda1bbbcadab8ea0bcade0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f5859187db8790869a80879690b59b8796db929a83">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of February 2011.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nicholas J. DiFrancesco,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 3-2, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-4984 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the
"Report") for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code.

Gregory
T. Schiffman, the Chief Financial Officer of Affymetrix, Inc. certifies that, to the best of such officer's knowledge:



|March 15, 2004 |  | /s/GREGORY T. SCHIFFMAN
|-------------- |  | -----------------------
|               |  | Name:                  
|               |  | Title:                 

---

QuickLinks
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 124

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prohibit the Secretary of

Agriculture from basing minimum prices for Class I milk on the distance

or transportation costs from any location that is not within a marketing

area, except under certain circumstances, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. FEINGOLD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to prohibit the

Secretary of Agriculture from basing minimum prices

for Class I milk on the distance or transportation costs

from any location that is not within a marketing area,

except under certain circumstances, and for other purposes.

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

•S 124 IS

1 SECTION 1. LOCATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR MINIMUM

2 PRICES FOR CLASS I MILK.

3 Section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7

4 U.S.C. 608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the Agri5 cultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended—

6 (1) in paragraph (A)—

7 (A) in clause (3) of the second sentence, by

8 inserting after ‘‘the locations’’ the following:

9 ‘‘within a marketing area subject to the order’’;

10 and

11 (B) by striking the last 2 sentences and in12 serting the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding sub13 section (18) or any other provision of law, when

14 fixing minimum prices for milk of the highest

15 use classification in a marketing area subject to

16 an order under this subsection, the Secretary

17 may not, directly or indirectly, base the prices

18 on the distance from, or all or part of the costs

19 incurred to transport milk to or from, any loca20 tion that is not within the marketing area sub21 ject to the order, unless milk from the location

22 constitutes at least 50 percent of the total sup23 ply of milk of the highest use classification in

24 the marketing area. The Secretary shall report

25 to the Committee on Agriculture of the House

26 of Representatives and the Committee on Agri-
3

•S 124 IS

1 culture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate

2 on the criteria that are used as the basis for the

3 minimum prices referred to in the preceding

4 sentence, including a certification that the mini5 mum prices are made in accordance with the

6 preceding sentence.’’; and

7 (2) in paragraph (B)(c), by inserting after ‘‘the

8 locations’’ the following: ‘‘within a marketing area

9 subject to the order’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph E. Richardson, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 750]

Appeal from a judgment of the Allegany County Court (Thomas E Brown, *1227J.), rendered March 3, 2005. The judgment revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed. Present— Hurlbutt, A.PJ., Martoche, Centra and Pine, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  9
<CIK>                      0001018450
<NAME>                     CHASE PREFERRED CAPITAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>               1,000
<CURRENCY>                 UNITED STATES DOLLAR
       
<S>                              <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                          1
<CASH>                              46,816
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                   0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                         0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                         0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>              0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     0
<LOANS>                          1,039,386
<ALLOWANCE>                          3,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   1,115,145
<DEPOSITS>                               0
<SHORT-TERM>                         3,216
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                      0
<LONG-TERM>                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                        550,000
<COMMON>                           171,750
<OTHER-SE>                         390,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>   1,115,145
<INTEREST-LOAN>                     61,336
<INTEREST-INVEST>                        0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                     1,696
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                    63,032
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   1,990
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                1,042
<LOAN-LOSSES>                            0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                       0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                        401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     60,641
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>          60,641
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                        60,641
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        47.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                        47.56
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                        7.80
<LOANS-NON>                          3,037
<LOANS-PAST>                             0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                         0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                          0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                     3,150
<CHARGE-OFFS>                            0
<RECOVERIES>                             0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                    3,368
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                     0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                      0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                  0
        


</TABLE>
### §932. Administration of oaths

(a) Such commissioned and warrant officers of the Coast Guard as may be designated by the Commandant may, pursuant to rules prescribed by the Commandant, exercise the general powers of a notary public in the administration of oaths for the following purposes:

(1) execution, acknowledgment, and attestation of instruments and papers, oaths of allegiance in connection with recruiting, oaths in connection with courts and boards, and all other notarial acts in connection with the proper execution of Coast Guard functions;

(2) execution, acknowledgment, and attestation of instruments and papers, and all other notarial acts in time of war or national emergency; and

(3) execution, acknowledgment, and attestation of instruments and papers, and all other notarial acts in Alaska and places beyond the continental limits of the United States where the Coast Guard is serving.

(b) No fee of any character shall be charged by any commissioned or warrant officer for performing notarial acts. The signature and indication of grade of any commissioned or warrant officer performing any notarial act shall be prima facie evidence of his authority.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 545, §636; renumbered §932, Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §107(b), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4205.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 14, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §§26, 27 (Apr. 16, 1908, ch. 145, §12, 35 Stat. 63; June 5, 1920, ch. 235, §1, 41 Stat. 880).

Said sections are rewritten, the provisions concerning oaths being broadened to conform more closely to law applicable to officers of the Navy (see title 34, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §217a). 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282 renumbered section 636 of this title as this section.
### M A N D A T E

TO THE 36TH DISTRICT COURT of SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 5th day of

February, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Cory Estrada Sierra, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00666-CR (Tr.Ct.No. S-05-3072-CR)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED

. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 28th day of April, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
# C_2007056EN.01002503.xml

| 10.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/25

---

Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-35/07)

(2007/C 56/49)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | principally, a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

principally, a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

1

| — | in the alternative, a declaration that, by failing in any event to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article of the directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, a declaration that, by failing in any event to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article of the directive;

| — | an order for the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order for the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 30 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 136, 2004, p. 58.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-6006
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RAYMOND DENNIS JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-72-352-G) Submitted: April 16, 1998 Decided: May 1, 1998 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Raymond Dennis Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion to terminate his sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jackson , No. CR-72-352-G (M.D.N.C. Aug. 28, 1997). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED