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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1999
<CASH>                                          25,927
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,774
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                     15,680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                82,153
<PP&E>                                          83,299
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,768
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                      82,002
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,057
<SALES>                                         49,667
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,667
<CGS>                                           38,979
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,979
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,080
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,372
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,708
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,708
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65


</TABLE>
### §527. Purchases of implements of war, etc., from American Republics

The Secretaries of the Army and of the Navy are authorized to purchase arms, ammunition, and implements of war produced within the jurisdiction of any American republic if such arms, ammunition, or implements of war cannot be produced in the United States.

(June 15, 1940, ch. 365, §7, 54 Stat. 397; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501.)

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

#### Change of Name

Department of War designated Department of the Army and title of Secretary of War changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501. Section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, was repealed by section 53 of act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956, enacted "Title 10, Armed Forces" which in sections 3010 to 3013 continued Department of the Army under administrative supervision of Secretary of the Army.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Secretary of the Air Force

For transfer of certain procurement and related functions and property, insofar as they pertain to Air Force, from Secretary of the Army and Department of the Army to Secretary of the Air Force and Department of the Air Force, see Secretary of Defense Transfer Order Nos. 6 [§1(a)(41)], eff. Jan. 15, 1948; 39 [§2zz], May 18, 1949.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 135139 & (18) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. MUSKEGON COUNTY PROSECUTOR, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices

v SC: 135139 COA: 281321 Muskegon CC: 07-045526-AW DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant,

and

WAYNE STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion fo r immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to a ppeal the October 23, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not p ersuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this C ourt. We DIRECT the Court of Appeals to issue a decision on the appeal before November 30, 2007.

t1030 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2007

Clerk
### §6722. Facility agreements

#### (a) Authorization of inspections

Inspections by the Technical Secretariat of plants, plant sites, or other facilities or locations for which the United States has a facility agreement with the Organization shall be conducted in accordance with the facility agreement. Any such facility agreement may not in any way limit the right of the owner or operator of the facility to withhold consent to an inspection request.

#### (b) Types of facility agreements

#### (1) Schedule 2 facilities

The United States National Authority shall ensure that facility agreements for plants, plant sites, or other facilities or locations that are subject to inspection pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article VI of the Convention are concluded unless the owner, operator, occupant, or agent in charge of the facility and the Technical Secretariat agree that such an agreement is not necessary.

#### (2) Schedule 3 facilities

The United States National Authority shall ensure that facility agreements are concluded for plants, plant sites, or other facilities or locations that are subject to inspection pursuant to paragraph 5 or 6 of Article VI of the Convention if so requested by the owner, operator, occupant, or agent in charge of the facility.

#### (c) Notification requirements

The United States National Authority shall ensure that the owner, operator, occupant, or agent in charge of a facility prior to the development of the agreement relating to that facility is notified and, if the person notified so requests, the person may participate in the preparations for the negotiation of such an agreement. To the maximum extent practicable consistent with the Convention, the owner and the operator, occupant or agent in charge of a facility may observe negotiations of the agreement between the United States and the Organization concerning that facility.

#### (d) Content of facility agreements

Facility agreements shall—

(1) identify the areas, equipment, computers, records, data, and samples subject to inspection;

(2) describe the procedures for providing notice of an inspection to the owner, occupant, operator, or agent in charge of a facility;

(3) describe the timeframes for inspections; and

(4) detail the areas, equipment, computers, records, data, and samples that are not subject to inspection.

(Pub. L. 105–277, div. I, title III, §302, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–872.)
§ 684.510 What services may Indian and Native American grantees provide to the community at large under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act? ( a ) INA program grantees may provide services to the INA communities in their service areas by engaging in program development and service delivery activities which: ( 1 ) Strengthen the capacity of Indian-controlled institutions to provide education and work-based learning services to INA youth and adults, whether directly or through other INA institutions such as tribal colleges;
( 2 ) Increase the community's capacity to deliver supportive services, such as child care, transportation, housing, health, and similar services needed by clients to obtain and retain employment;
( 3 ) Use program participants engaged in education, training, work experience, or similar activities to further the economic and social development of INA communities in accordance with the goals and values of those communities; and
( 4 ) Engage in other community-building activities described in the INA program grantee's 4-year plan.
( b ) INA program grantees should develop their 4-year plan in conjunction with, and in support of, strategic tribal planning and community development goals.
EX-4.8



 Exhibit 4.8 
  





 
 JT 13351/2 
COPYRIGHT 1930 BY 
DWIGHT & M. H. JACKSON 
CHICAGO 
PATENT PENDING 
NUMBER SHARES 
Incorporated under the Laws of the State of Delaware 
NANOSPHERE, INC. 
4,400 Authorized Series B Convertible Preferred Shares $0.01 Par Value Per Share 
This
Certifies that is the owner of full paid and non-assessable SHARES OF THE SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK OF NANOSPHERE, INC. transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized Attorney upon
the surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. 
The corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests, the powers, designations,
preferences and relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers and to be sealed with the Seal of the Corporation, this day of
A.D. . 
Secretary President 







 



 
 For Value Received, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto Shares represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably
constitute and appoint Attorney to transfer the said Shares on the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises. 
Dated

In presence of 
NOTICE THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH
THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER 
THIS SPACE IS NOT TO BE COVERED
IN ANY WAY
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 130.76

 130.70

 130.83

 130.87

 130.84

 130.73

 130.74

 130.62

 130.64

 130.61

 130.51

 130.26

 130.36

 130.46

 130.59

 130.44

 130.58

 130.60

 130.65

 130.57

 130.41

 130.55

 130.63

 130.58

 130.47

 130.50

 130.43

 130.39

 130.63

 130.70

 663

 656

 670

 675

 671

 659

 660

 646

 649

 645

 634

 608

 619

 629

 643

 627

 642

 644

 650

 641

 624

 639

 648

 642

 630

 633

 626

 622

 648

 656

STORAGE

+7

-7

+14

+5

-4

-12

+1

-14

+3

-4

-11

-26

+11

+10

+14

-16

+15

+2

+6

-9

-17

+15

+9

-6

-12

+3

-7

-4

+26

+8

CHANGE

567

531

497

459

438

429

427

408

408

387

372

383

411

431

446

443

411

362

346

328

340

355

358

346

321

313

300

288

282

249

INFLOW

 32

 31

 33

 34

 34

 33

 32

 32

 32

 32

 32

 30

 29

 29

 29

 29

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 28

 30

 29

 26

PUTAH

 530

 503

 456

 421

 405

 401

 393

 382

 373

 356

 345

 365

 375

 396

 409

 421

 374

 332

 314

 304

 320

 318

 324

 320

 298

 283

 275

 259

 239

 218

PUTAH

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 0

 1

 1

 1

 1

C.F.S.

 .23

 .31

 .28

 .26

 .27

 .27

 .26

 .28

 .29

 .29

 .35

 .18

 .28

 .19

 .26

 .24

 .24

 .16

 .25

 .23

 .28

 .21

 .30

 .28

 .24

 .04

 .17

 .19

 .19

 .25

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .04

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-SOLANO PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2011 RUN DATE: 10/03/2011

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +0 11,636 10,709 896 29 7.27 .04

ACRE-FEET +0 23,080 21,241 1,777 58

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 1,777

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 21,241

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .04

JULY 1, 2011 .04

 656

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK
§ 677.220 Under what circumstances may a corrective action or sanction be applied to local areas for poor performance? ( a ) If a local area fails to meet the adjusted levels of performance agreed to under § 677.210 for the primary indicators of performance in the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs authorized under WIOA title I in any program year, technical assistance must be provided by the Governor or, upon the Governor's request, by the Secretary of Labor. ( 1 ) A State must establish the threshold for failure to meet adjusted levels of performance for a local area before coming to agreement on the negotiated levels of performance for the local area. ( i ) A State must establish the adjusted level of performance for a local area, using the statistical adjustment model described in § 677.170(c).
( ii ) At least 2 years of complete data on any indicator for any local core program are required in order to establish adjusted levels of performance for a local area.
( 2 ) The technical assistance may include: ( i ) Assistance in the development of a performance improvement plan;
( ii ) The development of a modified local or regional plan; or
( iii ) Other actions designed to assist the local area in improving performance.
( b ) If a local area fails to meet the adjusted levels of performance agreed to under § 677.210 for the same primary indicators of performance for the same core program authorized under WIOA title I for a third consecutive program year, the Governor must take corrective actions. The corrective actions must include the development of a reorganization plan under which the Governor: ( 1 ) Requires the appointment and certification of a new Local WDB, consistent with the criteria established under § 679.350 of this chapter;
( 2 ) Prohibits the use of eligible providers and one-stop partners that have been identified as achieving poor levels of performance; or
( 3 ) Takes such other significant actions as the Governor determines are appropriate.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS

                         ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of John Hancock Financial
Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:

      (1) the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of and for the periods presented in the Report.

Dated: August 6, 2003                       /s/ THOMAS E. MOLONEY
                                            ---------------------
                                     Name:  Thomas E. Moloney
                                     Title: Senior Executive Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to John Hancock Financial Services, Inc. and will be retained by
John Hancock Financial Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

      It is intended that this Exhibit be treated as, and deemed to be,
"accompanying" this quarterly report on form 10-Q, and not "filed" as part of
the report.
#### Balwinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74689.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 21, 2006.

Surjit Singh, Esq., Law Office of Surgit Singh, Anaheim, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Julie A. Arbuekle, U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*216MEMORANDUM**

Balwinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *See Singh v. INS,*213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Kaur’s motion to reopen as untimely as it was filed well after the 90-day filing deadline had lapsed. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered”). The motion did not fall within the exception to the deadline found at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) because Kaur did not demonstrate that her claim for relief from removal was legitimized by changed circumstances in India. *See Malty v. Ashcroft,*381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004).

Kaur’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
but on his attorney as well. NRCP 5(b)(1); NRS 18.015(3). In addition, 

the district court failed to consider Stinziano's February 3, 2014, 

opposition to Steinberg's motion or to otherwise state in its order that it 

refused to consider the opposition because it was late, see EDCR 2.20(e); 

EDCR 5.11(d), and the district court failed to consider the Brunzell factors 

and set forth its reasoning regarding those factors in its order. See 

Argentena Consol. Mining Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish, 

125 Nev. 527, 540 n.2, 216 P.3d 779, 788 n.2 (2009); Brunzell, 85 Nev. at 

349-50, 455 P.2d at 33-34. Accordingly, we conclude that the district 

court abused its discretion in adjudicating the retaining lien, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for new proceedings on the 

motion to adjudicate the retaining lien consistent with this order. 

, J 

Saitta 

eaA. J. 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. William S. Potter, District Judge, Family Court Division 

Anthony Michael Stinziano 

Steinberg Law Group 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

# A RIZONA 

# C OURT OF 

# A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.
HILDEFONSO ARCINEIGA

- RANGEL , Petitioner

.

No. 1 CA

- CR 23

- 0227 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2004

- 019648

- 001 DT The Honorable David W. Garbarino , Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Philip D. Garrow Counsel for Respondent Hildefonso Arcineiga

- Rangel , Buckeye Petitioner FILED 1-25-2024STATE v. ARCINEIGA

- RANGEL Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Andrew M. Jacobs , and Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court

.

PER CURI A M : ¶1 Petitioner Hildefonso Arcineiga

- Rangel seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- co nviction relief

. This is his third petition

. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- conviction relief

. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 , 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 , P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establ ishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review

. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 443.37

 442.28

 441.75

 440.63

 439.87

 439.55

 438.95

 438.65

 437.78

 437.67

 436.90

 436.80

 437.10

 436.67

 435.47

 434.48

 434.31

 433.22

 432.67

 432.57

 431.90

 431.46

 430.71

 430.30

 430.30

 430.74

 431.30

 431.17

 430.91

 430.79

 430.71

 907,280

 896,741

 891,631

 880,866

 873,587

 870,528

 864,802

 861,944

 853,674

 852,630

 845,336

 844,390

 847,228

 843,161

 831,846

 822,551

 820,958

 810,772

 805,648

 804,718

 798,494

 794,415

 787,480

 783,698

 783,698

 787,757

 792,934

 791,731

 789,328

 788,219

 787,480

STORAGE

-11,067

-10,539

-5,110

-10,765

-7,279

-3,059

-5,726

-2,858

-8,270

-1,044

-7,294

-946

+2,838

-4,067

-11,315

-9,295

-1,593

-10,186

-5,124

-930

-6,224

-4,079

-6,935

-3,782

+0

+4,059

+5,177

-1,203

-2,403

-1,109

-739

CHANGE

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,023

597

0

0

500

0

1,588

1,989

600

0

0

189

3,208

3,591

3,135

1,965

2,606

1,774

2,000

PUMPING

 5,277

 5,335

 2,387

 5,163

 3,382

 1,033

 2,568

 959

 3,826

 0

 3,295

 0

 0

 2,212

 5,479

 4,346

 875

 4,811

 3,640

 2,170

 3,252

 1,730

 3,233

 1,577

 2,899

 1,075

 0

 2,608

 3,036

 2,379

 1,869

POWER

 335

 338

 211

 245

 322

 329

 348

 360

 387

 391

 366

 394

 319

 384

 393

 392

 377

 360

 373

 350

 351

 372

 357

 359

 340

 122

 127

 274

 292

 285

 363

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TUNNEL

+33

+360

+22

-20

+34

-180

+30

-122

+44

-135

-16

-83

-273

-51

+168

+51

-51

+36

-158

+62

-135

+45

+94

-159

+30

-347

-398

+310

-490

+331

-140

OR

 97

 100

 172

 149

 140

 133

 148

 145

 138

 187

 187

 242

 275

 0

 161

 163

 178

 184

 175

 141

 162

 111

 117

 113

 110

 167

 194

 167

 138

 138

 135

C.F.S.

 .31

 .32

 .55

 .48

 .45

 .43

 .48

 .47

 .45

 .61

 .61

 .79

 .90

 .00

 .53

 .54

 .59

 .61

 .58

 .47

 .54

 .37

 .39

 .38

 .37

 .56

 .65

 .56

 .46

 .46

 .45

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .33

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .02

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT

CONSOLIDATED STATE-FEDERAL SAN LUIS RESERVOIR September 25, 2003

DAILY OPERATIONS

AUGUST 2003 RUN DATE:

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S. LOSS(-)

SAN LUIS

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -130,867 25,765 80,416 10,216 0 -1,108 4,667 15.36 .35

ACRE-FEET -130,867 51,105 159,505 20,263 0 -2,198 9,257

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 159,505

PACHECO TUNNEL 20,263 TOTAL 179,768

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

JULY 1, 2003 TO DATE = .35

 918,347

SPILL 0 .35

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

STATE WATER PROJECT

PACHECO

GAIN(+)

C.F.S.

Table 17