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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   1-MO                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-10-1999             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          13,750                   2,117
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,750                   2,117
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,750                   2,117
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,678                  11,000
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           253                     253
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,181)                 (9,136)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,750                   2,117
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,928                 (7,430)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,928)                 (7,430)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.08)                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)                   (.03)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS RULINGS

Release No. 6896/January 20, 2023

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-21243

In the Matter of :

:

THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT OF : ORDER

AMERICAN CRYPTOFED DAO LLC :

The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted this proceeding with an Order 

Instituting Proceedings on November 18, 2022. The proceeding is a stop order proceeding, 

authorized pursuant to Section 8(d) of the Securities Act of 1933. As the Commission ordered,

the hearing before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding commenced at 

10:00 a.m. EST on December 1, 2022. Hearing sessions were held on December 1, 2, and 6, 

2022, and January 18 and 19, 2023, and the hearing was closed. The parties will confer to 

identify Respondent’s exhibits to be admitted (or excluded)1and will then file a joint proposed 

exhibit list by February 14, 2023, and email a copy in Microsoft Word format to ALJ@sec.gov. 

The undersigned will then admit Respondent’s exhibits, and the record of evidence will be 

closed.

The Division of Enforcement’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 

Respondent’s Opposition, and the Division’s Reply will be due February 21, April 4, and April 

18, 2023, respectively. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/ Carol Fox Foelak 

Carol Fox Foelak

Administrative Law Judge

 

1 Respondent had proposed a large number of exhibits over a period of time. In the interest of 

efficiency, the Division of Enforcement has agreed not to object to their admission. However, it 

appears that Respondent’s proposed exhibits include some substitutions and renumberings. 

Therefore, it is necessary for the parties to confer and agree on a joint exhibit list.
### SUBCHAPTER LXVI—PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AT WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13059

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DAVID SAULSBERRY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRITNEY ELDER, 

a.k.a. FTN Bae, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-62362-RS

USCA11 Case: 23-13059 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13059

____________________

Before WILSON, GRANT, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. David Saulsberry appeals from the district court’s August 15, 

2023 paperless order striking his motion for summary judgment. 

The court previously vacated a jury verdict and final judgment in 

favor of Saulsberry and has set a new trial for December 4, 2023. 

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the August 15 

order is not final or otherwise appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX 

Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 

2000). The order is not final because Saulsberry’s claims, and the 

defendant’s counterclaims, have not yet been resolved. See Supreme 

Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 

2012). Furthermore, the order is not otherwise appealable under 

the collateral order doctrine because it would not be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 

744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014). 

No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies 

with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all 

other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 23-13059 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023 Page: 2 of 2
### §1541. Endangered plants

The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, in conjunction with other affected agencies, is authorized and directed to review (1) species of plants which are now or may become endangered or threatened and (2) methods of adequately conserving such species, and to report to Congress, within one year after December 28, 1973, the results of such review including recommendations for new legislation or the amendment of existing legislation.

(Pub. L. 93–205, §12, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 901.)
#### § 503.1 Structure of the Bureau of Prisons.

The Bureau of Prisons consists of a Central Office, located at 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534, a Staff Training Center, and six Regional Offices (Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, North Central, South Central, and Western). For further information, please contact the Central Office at the address referenced, or visit *www.bop.gov* for a complete list of contact information for Bureau Regional Offices and facilities.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        
<ARTICLE>       5
<MULTIPLIER>    1

       
<S>                                <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       SEP-30-1998                     
<CASH>                                  30,437
<SECURITIES>                            20,000                             
<RECEIVABLES>                        1,008,425                          
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0                    
<INVENTORY>                             10,036                          
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     1,571,981                     
<PP&E>                                  80,292                                 
<DEPRECIATION>                         (43,385)                    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,913,908                         
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  385,049          
<BONDS>                                      0                                
<COMMON>                               215,000                           
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0          
<PREFERRED>                                  0                  
<OTHER-SE>                                   0                      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         1,913,908     
<SALES>                              1,054,419                                
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     1,054,419          
<CGS>                                  201,252                         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          216,091               
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0          
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      (6,115)          
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        615,168                  
<INCOME-TAX>                               (25)                            
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          0          
<DISCONTINUED>                               0                     
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0             
<CHANGES>                                    0                            
<NET-INCOME>                           615,143                         
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              .19                     
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .06                       
        
        

</TABLE>
# C_2012138EN.01001701.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Omya v OHIM — Alpha Calcit (CALCIMATT)

(Case T-547/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CALCIMATT - Prior Community word mark CALCILAN - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Refusal of registration)

(2012/C 138/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Omya AG (Oftringen, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Kuschmirek and V. Dalichau, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: D. Botis; subsequently by: R. Manea; and finally by: G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Hauck, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2010 (Case R 1370/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH and Omya AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Omya AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Omya AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

---
EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF BEEMER, PRICHER, KUEHNHACKL & HEIDBRINK, P.A.
            --------------------------------------------------------
               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Form S-8
Registration Statement No.333-07449 regarding the Dividend Reinvestment Program
and Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-64537 regarding the Stock
Compensation Plan of Whitemark Homes, Inc. of our report dated February 11, 2005
which is included in the annual report on Form 10-KSB of Whitemark Homes, Inc.
and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2004.



/s/ BEEMER, PRICHER, KUEHNHACKL & HEIDBRINK, P.A.
Beemer, Pricher, Kuehnhackl & Heidbrink, P.A.


Winter Park, Florida
Date: April 12, 2005
#### § 40.20 Contemplated change in certified procedure.

A proposed change in a certified procedure must be submitted to the Attorney General thirty days in advance of its proposed effective date. The Attorney General shall review such proposed change and notify the applicant in writing before the effective date of the proposed change if such change will result in suspension or withdrawal of the certification of the grievance procedure.
§ 44.304 Special Counsel acting on own initiative. ( a ) The Special Counsel may, on the Special Counsel's own initiative, conduct investigations respecting unfair immigration-related employment practices when there is reason to believe that a person or other entity has engaged or is engaging in such practices, and shall notify a respondent by certified mail of the commencement of the investigation.
( b ) The Special Counsel may file a complaint with OCAHO when there is reasonable cause to believe that an unfair immigration-related employment practice has occurred no more than 180 days prior to the date on which the Special Counsel opened an investigation of that practice.
Exhibit 23


                   [LETTERHEAD OF YOUNT, HYDE & BARBOUR, P.C.]


                          Independent Auditors' Consent



We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  following  registration
statements of Independent  Community  Bankshares,  Inc. - Form S-8, Registration
No. 333-93447,  and Form S-3, Registration No. 333-45962 - and in the prospectus
related to each,  of our report  dated  January 15,  2002,  with  respect to the
consolidated  financial  statements of Independent  Community  Bankshares,  Inc.
included  in  the  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-KSB  of  Independent   Community
Bankshares, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.


/s/ Yount, Hyde & Barbour, P.C.


Winchester, Virginia
March 29, 2002
<PAGE>


Exhibit 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 14,
2003 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Analex Corporation
and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2002, in the following Registration Statements:

1.   Registration Statement Number 333-37059 (Hadron, Inc. 1994 Stock Option
     Plan) on Form S-8

2.   Registration Statement Number 333-42035 (Hadron, Inc. 1997 Employee Stock
     Purchase Plan) on Form S-8

3.   Registration Statement Number 333-96297 (Hadron, Inc. 1994 Stock Option
     Plan) on Form S-8

4.   Registration Statement Number 333-96299 (Hadron, Inc. 1997 Employee Stock
     Purchase Plan) on Form S-8

5.   Registration Statement Number 333-60440 (Hadron, Inc. 1997 Employee Stock
     Purchase Plan) on Form S-8

6.   Registration Statement Number 333-60442 (Hadron, Inc. 2000 Stock Option
     Plan) on Form S-8.


                                                  Ernst & Young LLP
November 6, 2003
McLean, Virginia
###### Editorial Note on Subpart G of Part 42

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart G of part 42 appear by Order No. 2679-2003, 68 FR 51364, 51365, 51366, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 42.520 Discrimination prohibited.

Recipients shall insure that no qualified handicapped person is denied the benefits of, excluded from participation in, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance because the recipient's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by handicapped persons.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 27, 2016

s0120

Order 

Clerk

January 27, 2016

152292

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 152292

COA: 321317

Wayne CC: 13-011629-FH

JERRELL DEONTE GRIFFEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 16, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Editorial Note on Part 28
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 28 appear at 76 FR 76873, Dec. 9, 2011.

§ 28.81 Procedures and criteria for certification. ( a ) Interlocutory review by the Board of a ruling by the administrative judge during the course of the proceeding is disfavored and will be permitted only in circumstances where: ( 1 ) The ruling involves an important question of law or policy about which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and
( 2 ) An immediate review of the ruling by the Board will materially advance the completion of the proceeding, or denial will cause undue harm to a party or the public.
( b ) The administrative judge may, on motion of a party or on their own motion, certify an interlocutory ruling to the Board for its immediate consideration. Any such certification shall explain the basis on which the administrative judge concluded that the standards for interlocutory review have been met. If the Board nevertheless determines that the certification does not meet those standards it may decline to accept the certification.
( c ) A motion for certification to the Board of an interlocutory ruling by the administrative judge shall be filed within 10 days after service of the ruling upon the parties. The motion shall include arguments in support of both the certification and the determination to be made by the Board. Responses, if any, shall be filed within 10 days after service of the motion.
( d ) The grant or denial of a motion for certification of an interlocutory ruling shall not be appealable. The administrative judge shall promptly bring a denial of such a motion, and the reasons therefor, to the attention of the Board. If, upon its consideration of the motion and the underlying record, the Board believes that interlocutory review is warranted, it may grant the motion sua sponte.
( e ) Upon its acceptance of a ruling of the administrative judge for interlocutory review, the Board shall issue an order setting forth the procedures that will be followed in the conduct of that review.
( f ) Unless otherwise directed by the Board, the stay of any proceedings during the pendency of either a motion for certification or an interlocutory review itself shall be within the discretion of the administrative judge.
( g ) The denial of a motion for certification does not affect the right of the parties to challenge interlocutory rulings in the course of the review by the Board of initial or recommended decisions.
[58 FR 61992, Nov. 23, 1993, as amended at 89 FR 51399, June 18, 2024]
### §17o. Repealed or Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 104–333, div. I, title VIII, §814(a), Nov. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 4190; Pub. L. 106–176, title I, §120(a)(1), Mar. 10, 2000, 114 Stat. 28; Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272, which related to National Park Service housing improvement, was repealed in part and omitted in part.

Section 17o consisted of pars. (1) to (19). Pars. (2) to (19) were repealed, and pars. (2), (3), (6) to (14), and (17) to (19) were restated in subchapter III (§101331 et seq.) of chapter 1013 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs, by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3272, which Act enacted Title 54. For disposition of section 17o, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

Par. (1), which stated the purposes of this section, was omitted from the Code given the repeal of pars. (2) to (19) and enactment of Title 54.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Release No. 86366 / July 12, 2019

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940

Release No. 5298 / July 12, 2019

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-18130

In the Matter of

JEFFREY GAINER

NOTICE THAT INITIAL DECISION HAS BECOME FINAL

The time for filing a petition for review of the initial decision in this proceeding has 

expired. No such petition has been filed by Jeffrey Gainer and the Commission has not chosen 

to review the decision on its own initiative.

Accordingly, notice is hereby given, pursuant to Rule 360(d) of the Commission's Rules 

of Practice,1that the initial decision of the administrative law judge has become the final 

decision of the Commission with respect to Jeffrey Gainer.

2

The order contained in that decision 

is hereby declared effective. The initial decision ordered that: (a) under Section 15(b) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,

Jeffrey Gainer is barred from associating with a broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal 

securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating 

organization; and (b) under Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Jeffrey Gainer 

is barred from participating in an offering of penny stock, including acting as a promoter, finder, 

consultant, agent, or other person who engages in activities with a broker, dealer, or issuer for 

purposes of the issuance of trading in any penny stock, or inducing or attempting to induce the 

purchase or sale of any penny stock.

For the Commission, by the Office of the General Counsel, pursuant to delegated 

authority.

Vanessa A. Countryman

 Secretary

 

1

 17 C.F.R. § 201.360(d).

2

 Jeffrey Gainer, Initial Decision Release No. 1372 (Apr. 10, 2019), 2019 WL 1569186.
#### Herman J. Hilgendorf, Respondent, v. Lewis L. Jennings and Others, Appellants.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

h1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145602

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145602

COA: 304576

St. Clair CC: 11-000167-FC

TIMOTHY NEAL THOMAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.