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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         192,331
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 480,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         21,631
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           210
<OTHER-SE>                                     452,045
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   480,113
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,651
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 446
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,581
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,581
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,581
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
**UNITED
      STATES**


**SECURITIES
      AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**


**Washington,
      D.C. 20549**




FORM
      6-K





**Report
      of Foreign Issuer**




**Pursuant
      to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of** **the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934**







**For
      the month of March, 2006**


**Commission
      File No. 1-9987**













B
      + H  O C E A N C A R R I E R S, L T D.













3rdFloor,
      Par La Ville Place


**14
      Par-La-Ville Road**


**Hamilton
      HM JX Bermuda**


(Address
      of principal executive offices)

















Indicate
      by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under
      cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F.





Form
      20-F X   Form
      40-F





Indicate
      by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted
      by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1):




Indicate
      by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted
      by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7):





Indicate
      by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this Form,
      the
      registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant
      to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.





Yes    NoX







INFORMATION
      CONTAINED IN THIS FORM 6-K REPORT







Set
      forth
      herein as Exhibit 99.1 is a Press Release Announcing Vessel
      Acquisitions




















**Signatures**








Pursuant
      to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant
      has
      duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto
      duly authorized.







Date  March
      21, 2006


B+H
      Ocean Carriers, Ltd.


By:  /s/
      Michael S. Hudner


Chief
      Executive Officer
# C_2012126EN.01001602.xml

| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 126/16

---

Order of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Schneider España de Informática, SA v European Commission

(Case T-153/10) (1)

1

(Customs union - Importation of colour television sets assembled in Turkey - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for waiver of post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties and for remission of those duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Commission decision rejecting that application - Annulment by the national court of decisions taken by national authorities ordering post-clearance entry of import duties in the accounts - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 126/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Schneider España de Informática, SA (Torrejón de Ardoz (Spain)) (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 22 final of 18 January 2010 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (Case REM 02/08),

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.

1

---
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 - 2498

**MEMORANDUM** SUBJECT: Emissions In ventory and Air Quality Modeling Data Files for Final Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards FROM: Margaret Zawacki

Assessment and Standards Division , Office of T ransportation and Air Quality TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 20 11 - 0 135 DATE: February 20 , 201 4 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide contact information for persons who would like to obtain emissions inventory and air quality

modeling data files which were used in the air quality modeling for the Tier 3 motor vehicle emissions and fuel standards . The emissions inventory modeling analy ses are discussed in the Emissions I nventory for Air Quality

Modeling Technical Support Document : Tier 3 Motor Veh icle Emission and Fuel Standards . The air quality modeling analy sis is discussed in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document : Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards . Both technical support documents are contained in the docket for th e T ier 3 rulemaking (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2011 - 0135) . To obtain the data files please contact: Sharon Phillips EPA/OAQPS/AQMD? 109 T.W. Alexander Drive C439 - 01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 (919) 541 - 2138 phillips.sharon@epa.gov OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
#### § 385.2202 Separation of functions (Rule 2202).

In any proceeding in which a Commission adjudication is made after hearing, or in any proceeding arising from an investigation under part 1b of this chapter beginning from the time the Commission initiates a proceeding governed by part 385 of this chapter, no officer, employee, or agent assigned to work upon the proceeding or to assist in the trial thereof, in that or any factually related proceeding, shall participate or advise as to the findings, conclusion or decision, except as a witness or counsel in public proceedings.

[Order 718, 73 FR 62886, Oct. 22, 2008]
### §6801. Protection of nonpublic personal information

#### (a) Privacy obligation policy

It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers' nonpublic personal information.

#### (b) Financial institutions safeguards

In furtherance of the policy in subsection (a), each agency or authority described in section 6805(a) of this title, other than the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, shall establish appropriate standards for the financial institutions subject to their jurisdiction relating to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards—

(1) to insure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information;

(2) to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records; and

(3) to protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information which could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.

(Pub. L. 106–102, title V, §501, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1436; Pub. L. 111–203, title X, §1093(1), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2095.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 111–203 inserted ", other than the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection," after "section 6805(a) of this title" in introductory provisions.

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

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1100H of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 552a of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 106–102, title V, §510, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1445, provided that: "This subtitle [subtitle A (§§501–510) of title V of Pub. L. 106–102, enacting this subchapter and amending section 1681s of this title] shall take effect 6 months after the date on which rules are required to be prescribed under section 504(a)(3) [15 U.S.C. 6804(a)(3)], except—

"(1) to the extent that a later date is specified in the rules prescribed under section 504; and

"(2) that sections 504 [15 U.S.C. 6804] and 506 [enacting section 6806 of this title and amending section 1681s of this title] shall be effective upon enactment [Nov. 12, 1999]."
# C_2006178EN.01002803.xml

| 29.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/28

---

Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 23 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna (Italy)) — Impresa Portuale di Cagliari Srl v Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA

(Case C-174/03) (1)

1

(2006/C 178/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 6.9.2003.

1

---
### §7231. Exemption authority

The Board may, on a case by case basis, exempt any person, issuer, public accounting firm, or transaction from the prohibition on the provision of services under section 78j–1(g) of this title, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and is consistent with the protection of investors, and subject to review by the Commission in the same manner as for rules of the Board under section 7217 of this title.

(Pub. L. 107–204, title II, §201(b), July 30, 2002, 116 Stat. 772.)
Order entered August 2 8, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01621
- CR No. 05
- 12
- 01622
- CR
JOSHUA PULLIAM
- ROBERTS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F12
- 34121
- J , F12
- 34219
- J



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATE S the appeals. On July 8, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s
brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appe llant desires to pursue the appeals; (2) appellant is indigent and is represented by appointed counsel Nanette Hendrickson of the Dallas County Public Defender’s Office; (3) Ms. Hendrickson’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is her wor kload; and (4) Ms. Hendrickson requested an additional thirty days from the August 12, 2013 hearing to file appellant’s brief.
We ORDER appellant to file his brief by SEPTEMBER 13, 2013 . Because appellant’s brief is already more than two months overdue, n o further extensions will be granted. Ifappellant’s brief is not filed by the date specified, the Court will order Nanette Hendrickson and

the Dallas County Public Defender’s Office removed as appellant’s counsel and will order the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant in these appeals.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Gracie Lewis, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 3; Katherine Drew, Appellate

- Chief, Dallas Count y Public Defender’s Office; Nanette Hendrickson, Dallas County Public Defender’s Office; and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                   143,404
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            106,591
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                              393,029
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         663,880
<PP&E>                                 1,154,442
<DEPRECIATION>                           404,076
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         1,443,046
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    668,440
<BONDS>                                  350,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        761
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                   4,034
<OTHER-SE>                               419,811
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           1,443,046
<SALES>                                2,285,941
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       2,285,941
<CGS>                                  1,944,759
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          1,944,759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         484,837
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        17,913
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (161,568)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.01)


</TABLE>
# C_2012073EN.01001401.xml

| 10.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/14

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeș, Romania) — Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu (C-483/11), Mariana Budan (C-484/11) v Statul român

(Joined Cases C-483/11 and C-484/11) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 43, 92(1) and 103(1)of the Rules of Procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Compensation payable to persons sentenced in political trials under the Communist regime - Right to compensation for non-material harm suffered - Failure to implement European Union law - Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)

2012/C 73/24

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Argeș

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu (C-483/11), Mariana Budan (C-484/11)

Applicants:

Defendant: Statul român

Defendant:

Intervener: Iulian-Nicolae Cujbescu (Case C-484/11)

Intervener:

Re:

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Argeș — Interpretation of Article 5 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Compensation payable to persons sentenced in political trials under the Communist regime — Admissibility of national legislation reducing the right to compensation for non-material harm suffered

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Tribunalul Argeș, Romania, by decisions of 4 April and 4 July 2011.

---

(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF LOSS AND ACCUMULATED DEFICIT AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE  TO SUCH 10QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED July
31, 1999.


<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Apr-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Jul-31-1999
<CASH>                                            2740
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2740
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1367
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      10000
<COMMON>                                          1935
<OTHER-SE>                                      (10337)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2965
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1692
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (1692)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.001)



</TABLE>
### §3702. Purpose

It is the purpose of this chapter to improve the economic, environmental, and social well-being of the United States by—

(1) establishing organizations in the executive branch to study and stimulate technology;

(2) promoting technology development through the establishment of cooperative research centers;

(3) stimulating improved utilization of federally funded technology developments, including inventions, software, and training technologies, by State and local governments and the private sector;

(4) providing encouragement for the development of technology through the recognition of individuals and companies which have made outstanding contributions in technology; and

(5) encouraging the exchange of scientific and technical personnel among academia, industry, and Federal laboratories.

(Pub. L. 96–480, §3, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2312; Pub. L. 99–502, §9(b)(1), (f)(2), Oct. 20, 1986, 100 Stat. 1795, 1797.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Par. (2). Pub. L. 99–502, §9(b)(1), substituted "cooperative research centers" for "centers for industrial technology".

Par. (3). Pub. L. 99–502, §9(f)(2), inserted ", including inventions, software, and training technologies,".
#### Smith v. Richardson.

June 30, 1910.

Injunction. Before Judge File. Walker superior court.

July 17, 1909.

*H. P.*Lumpkin, for plaintiff in error.

Fish, C. J.

The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting, on conflicting evidence, the interlocutory injunction of which complaint is made. ' *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6640

RICHARD AARON BLANKENSHIP, JR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View 

Correctional Institution,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (5:09-cv-00027-GCM)

Submitted: April 1, 2010 Decided: April 13, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Aaron Blankenship, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Aaron Blankenship, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Blankenship has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED